■ . V ; :
v. ■ .
THROW THEM ALL OUT
THE UNTOLD STORY OF HOW AND WHY
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND BUSINESSES
HELPED MAKE BILL AND HILLARY RICH
The Untold Story of How and Why
Foreign Governments and Businesses
Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
The Lincoln Bedroom Goes Global
The Transfer: Bill ’s Excellent Kazakh Adventure
Hillary’s Reset: The Russian Uranium Deal
CHAPTEk 4 Indian Nukes: How to Win a Medal by Changing Hillary ’s Mind
CHAPTEk 5 The Clinton Blur (I): Bill and Hillary’s Global Nexus of Philanthropy. Power.
and Pro fit
CHAPTEk 6 The Clinton Blur (II): The View from Foggy Bottom
CHAPTEk 7 Podium Economics: What Was Bill Being Paid For?
CHAPTEk 8 Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa
CHAPTtk 9 Rain forest Riches: Hillary. Bill, and Colombian Timber and Oil Deals
CHAPTbk io Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style: The 2010 Haitian Relief Effort
CHAPTlk li Quid pro Quo?
15. About the Author
16. Also by Peter Schweizer
19. About the Publisher
The Lincoln Bedroom Goes Global
Ask Team Clinton about the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation (the formal
name is the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, originally called the William J. Clinton
Foundation) from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers and you typically get an
interesting explanation: it’s a sign of love. “As president, he was beloved around the world, so it
should come as no surprise that there has been an outpouring of financial support from around the
world to sustain his post-presidential work.” 1
Ask Bill about the tens of millions of dollars he has made in speaking fees around the world, paid
for by the same cast of characters, and you will get an equally charitable explanation: it’s evidence of
his desire to help people. By giving these highly paid speeches, Clinton says, “I try to help people
think about what’s going on and organize their lives accordingly.” 2
Millions of dollars as a sign of pure affection; millions more for helping people think about their
lives. By this logic, politicians who raise millions of dollars a year must be the most beloved people
in America — and the most charitable.
The reality is that most of what happens in American politics is transactional. People look for
ways to influence those in power by throwing money in their direction. Politicians are all too happy
to vacuum up contributions from supporters and people who want access or something in return. After
politicians leave office, they often trade on their relationships and previous positions to enrich
themselves and their families.
The law dictates how much politicians can collect in campaign contributions, limits their ability to
make money on the side, and requires the disclosure of those contributors. Hopefully, politicians are
also limited to some extent by their conscience. A sense of decency and good judgment ought to
prevent politicians on both sides of the aisle from engaging in certain transactions — even if they think
they can get away with it.
But while there is ample debate about which transactions should be limited and how, there is near-
universal agreement that the game, however muddy, should be exclusively played by Americans. For
this reason, it has long been illegal for foreigners to contribute to US political campaigns. In 2012
two foreign nationals challenged the constitutionality of that law. The US Supreme Court decided 9-0
declaring the law not only constitutional, but eminently reasonable. 3
The Clintons, however, often take money from foreign entities. And that money, donated to the
Clinton Foundation or paid in speaking fees, comes in amounts much larger than any campaign
contribution. Indeed, the scope and extent of these payments are without precedent in American
politics. As a result, the Clintons have become exceedingly wealthy.
The big question is whether taking such money constitutes a transaction. The Clintons would
undoubtedly argue that it does not. The evidence presented in this book suggests otherwise.
Any serious journalist or investigator will tell you that proving corruption by a political figure is
extremely difficult. Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t
know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of a
transaction, or why people in power make the decisions they do. This is why the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) sets up sting operations: to catch suspected malefactors in the act.
That is also why investigators look primarily at patterns of behavior. Imagine, for example, that
you are exploring whether a politician is doing favors for a major campaign contributor in a manner
that might be illegal. If investigators were to find that the timing of major campaign contributions
occurred immediately before the politician made a highly favorable decision for the donor, and that
this pattern could be well established, such timing would certainly warrant further investigation.
This was precisely the approach I took in my 2011 book, Throw Them All Out, concerning stock
trades and members of Congress. Were members of Congress engaged in insider trading in the stock
market? I looked at both their stock trades and their official activities, such as voting on certain bills.
I discovered that politicians from both parties had curious patterns in their stock picks, often buying
and selling at opportune times. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, some politicians sold
stocks or shorted the market (bet that it would go lower) shortly after receiving secret economic
briefings from senior government officials.
Was this proof that insider trading had taken place? No. As I pointed out in the book, we could not
know precisely why the politicians were making these particular trades at those particular times. But
the patterns were highly suspicious. Shortly after the release of the book and a 60 Minutes segment on
my findings, politicians from both parties cooperated in passing the STOCK Act, which was designed
to outlaw congressional insider trading. President Barack Obama condemned the practice during his
2012 State of the Union Address and later signed the STOCK Act into law. (The law was
subsequently gutted by Congress and the White House, but that’s another story.) I can proudly say that
my findings were attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.
In a legal sense I could not prove that insider trading had taken place. I didn’t know precisely the
motivations at work when stocks were being traded. But the pattern and timing of those trades raised
questions so troubling that even members of Congress could not ignore it.
In 2013 I published a follow-up called Extortion, which argued that members of Congress from
both parties were in the habit of “extorting” campaign contributions and other favors from businesses
and outside groups. Money flowing into politics was not just about outside interests trying to “bribe”
politicians; politicians were knowingly putting outside interests in a position where they had to buy
“protection” from them. I also released to the public for the first time the “party dues” lists whereby
politicians were required to pay a certain amount of money to their party in order to obtain seats on
certain congressional committees. The more important the committee, the more you were expected to
pay. I further explained how politicians from both parties were using leadership PACs to feather their
own nests, tapping those funds to pay for things that enhanced their own lifestyles.
Was I able to prove intent or know why politicians were doing what they were doing? Of course
not. But as before, the timing of these transactions was highly suspicious. Once again, 60 Minutes ran
a segment about my findings which led to legislation being introduced that would restrict how
leadership PAC funds were used. And once again, my findings were attacked by both Republicans
Given my previous focus on bipartisan self-dealing and corruption, why am I now focused on one
couple? Do I simply have it in for Bill and Hillary? Am I somehow trying to derail her prospects of
being elected president in 20 1 6?
The answer is pretty straightforward: the global dealings of this political couple deserve bipartisan
citizen attention as much as congressional insider trading or campaign contribution extortion did. No
one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while
they or a spouse continued to serve in public office. The ability of any other ex-politician, whether a
former president, senator, or congressman, Republican or Democrat, to accumulate such large
amounts of money in such a short period of time is unmatched. It’s not even close.
To put an even finer point on it: I am focusing specifically on financial transactions involving
foreign businesses, investors, and governments. Foreign interests can’t donate to political campaigns.
But they can pay money for speeches. And they can donate to the Clinton Foundation. Are they doing
so to buy influence? Does the timing of the payments coincide with key decisions made by US
government officials? Are they successful in obtaining favorable outcomes?
Using publicly available sources, including financial records, tax records, government documents,
and more, my research team and I have uncovered a repeated pattern of financial transactions
coinciding with official actions favorable to Clinton contributors that is troubling enough to warrant
(in my opinion) further investigation by law enforcement officers. Just as I couldn’t prove that
members of Congress were guilty of trading on inside information, I cannot say exactly why these
financial transactions are taking place. But as we will see, their unprecedented scale, the often shady
nature of the characters involved, their timing, and their frequently favorable outcomes are all, or
ought to be, extremely troubling.
As Hillary famously noted, the Clintons were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.
This statement was immediately challenged as a gross exaggeration. 4,5 Still, their means were modest
compared to those of other politicians, such as George W. Bush, whose net worth is $20 million, or
John Kerry, whose net worth is well over $100 million.
Because the Clintons’ financial public disclosures are given in ranges, it’s impossible to know
their precise net worth. The Clintons’ co nfi rmed income between 2001 and 2012 was at least $136.5
million, according to the Washington Post. USA Today estimates Bill Clinton’s personal net worth to
be $55 million. That’s a very big jump from “dead broke” in a very short time. It is important to
consider the fact that payments made to Bill Clinton for speeches or consulting fees benefit wife
Hillary and their married net worth.
Some of this income comes from book deals. The Clintons have been paid handsomely to write
their public memoirs. But the greater part of it by far comes from Bill’s speechmaking. According to
financial disclosures, since leaving the White House, Bill has been paid an annual average of over $8
million for giving speeches around the world. The fees he collects are enormous and unprecedented,
sometimes as much as $500,000 or even $750,000 per speech. It’s hard to imagine that Clinton’s
pearls of wisdom are worth that much to even the most worshipful audience.
But as this book will try to show, Bill’s speechmaking does not happen in a vacuum It is part of a
larger pattern of activity that has never before been exposed to public scrutiny.
During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of
large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments,
corporations, and private financiers. Some of these transactions have put millions in their own
pockets thanks to Bill’s lucrative lecture career. Others were part of US foreign policy. Others put
millions into their legacy project, the Clinton Foundation. As we will see, the sums involved are
nothing short of staggering.
What’s more, many of these exchanges have taken place at a time when these outside interests had
matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk, whether in the Senate office building or on the third
floor of the State Department. The issues seemingly connected to these large transfers are arresting in
their sweep and seriousness: the Russian government’s acquisition of American uranium assets;
access to vital US nuclear technology; matters related to Middle East policy; the approval of
controversial energy projects; the overseas allocation of billions in taxpayer funds; and US human
rights policy, to name a few.
Of even greater concern is that the foreign players giving money to the Clintons include foreign
governments (and controversial politicians) in countries like Russia, India, and the United Arab
Emirates, where there are major foreign policy issues at stake. In other cases, foreign businessmen
appear to have benefited shortly before or after private meetings with foreign officials involving one
or both Clintons. There is nothing clearly illegal about these payments. But their source, size, and
timing raise serious questions deserving of deeper investigation. While some particular facts or
instances have been reported on sporadically elsewhere, the convoluted methods, shady characters,
and cumulative pattern of behavior will be described in this book for the first time.
Also described for the first time is the role of the Clinton Foundation at the center of an elaborate
system for generating large donations and fees.
In June 1999, as his second term was winding down, Bill sat down with his chief fundraiser and
forty business leaders at La Grenouille in midtown Manhattan to outline his future vision for a
nonprofit organization. 6 The Clinton Foundation would become the centerpiece of his post-
presidential work. And both the Clintons were engaged. Hillary played “an important role in shaping
both the foundation’s organization and the scope of its work,” in the words of the New York Times. As
the foundation’s first chief of staff, Karen Tramontano, put it, “She and I would speak frequently. She
had a lot of ideas. All the papers that went to him went to her.” She even attended foundation planning
sessions while she served in the US Senate. 7
The foundation’s mission appeared as much as anything to protect President Clinton’s legacy as
well as to bolster his philanthropic work around the world. Its method of operation would be to raise
money from donations and regrant the funds or use them to finance its own philanthropic programs,
including initiatives involving health care, the environment, and development in the third world.
Yet even before Clinton left office, the foundation found itself mired in controversy. The timing of
certain contributions raised questions as to whether they were tied to official favors. On October 6,
1999, Anhe user-Busch Companies gave the first of five payments totaling $1 million for the William
J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum (or Clinton Library for short), which was funded in part
by donations given through the Clinton Foundation. As the New York Times reported, less than a
month earlier “the Clinton administration’s Federal Trade Commission dropped a bid to regulate
beer, wine, and liquor advertising” allegedly aimed at underage drinkers. 8
In May 1999 a bankruptcy attorney from Chicago named William A. Brandt Jr. also pledged $1
million. At the time the Clinton Justice Department was investigating Brandt’s testimony to Congress
to determine whether he had lied under oath concerning a Clinton fundraiser and the lobbying of
federal officials. Three months later, in August, the Department of Justice dropped the investigation
and determined that “prosecution is not warranted.” 9
In 1999 Dr. Richard Machado Gonzalez and his lawyer, Miguel Lausell, were lobbying President
Clinton to boost Puerto Rican hospital Medicare reimbursements. This would benefit, among others,
Machado, who owned one of the eligible hospitals. Eight months prior to Clinton proposing increased
Medicare payments, Lausell gave the Clinton Library a $1 million gift. Machado gave the foundation
$100,000 six months after that.
The controversies reached a fever pitch during Clinton’s final days in office, when he pardoned
billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, an oil trader and financier who had been indicted on numerous
charges by US prosecutors and had fled the country. Rich’s business ties included a “who’s who” of
unsavory despots, including Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. (Rich had
traded oil with the ayatollah in violation of US law while Iran held American hostages.) He owed
$48 million in back taxes that he unlawfully tried to avoid and faced the possibility of 325 years in
prison. As a result, he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. On his last day in office, President Clinton
infamously pardoned Rich, sending shockwaves through Washington. The pardon came after his ex-
wife, Denise Rich, donated $100,000 to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign, $450,000 to the Clinton
Library, and $ 1 million to the Democratic Party.
Condemnation of the whole affair was immediate and nearly universal. Maureen Dowd labeled the
Clintons as “grifters” and the New York Times bemoaned President Clinton’s “outrageous abuse of
the pardoning power.” 10 Former president Jimmy Carter called it “disgraceful.” 11 Even longtime
Clinton supporters, like James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were critical. 12 The Washington Post
wondered if the “defining characteristic” of Bill and Hillary Clinton was that “they have no capacity
This last comment expresses a view of the Clintons frequently voiced by journalists and
establishment figures over the years. Indeed, speculating on their motives has become something of a
Washington parlor game. In this view, either the Clintons are utterly shameless, cynically assuming
they will survive whatever scandal comes their way, or they are so convinced of their own virtue and
benevolence that they are able to excuse whatever they have to do in the pursuit of their noble ends,
no matter how low or unethical. We may never know the answer to this fascinating riddle.
Either way, the Clintons were just getting started. Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the
lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million from 2001 through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of
dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the
United States but from foreign investors, businesses, and governments eager to please the former
president — and probably hungry for access to the corridors of American power. Meanwhile, Hillary
was quickly rising in the ranks of the US Senate, gaining influence and power, especially on matters
concerning national security and foreign policy. When she ran for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2008, her power prospects rocketed. While Barack Obama’s unexpected victory in the
Democratic primaries apparently derailed this inexorable ascent, she still ended up in an even more
powerful position than before.
When President-elect Obama first floated Hillary Clinton’s name for secretary of state in late
2008, serious questions arose about the sources of funds donated to various Clinton interests. Many
were troubled by the fact that so much of the Clintons’ newfound wealth was tied to foreign
contributors. During her tenure as a senator, two-thirds of Bill’s enormous speaking fees had come
from foreign sources. (As we will see, after she became secretary of state, Bill’s speaking fees and
income from foreign speechmaking ballooned.) There was also the fact that tens of millions of dollars
had flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the
United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers.
Would Hillary feel indebted to these foreign donors? Would these relationships influence her
decisions on matters affecting US interests?
Some foreign newspapers raised concerns about her “impartiality” because of the money funneled
to her foundation from certain countries. 13 Some foreign observers viewed these donations not as acts
of disinterested charity but as efforts to buy goodwill and influence from the incoming secretary of
state. Donations from Indian billionaires and industrialists, wrote th q Indian Express , were about
“jockeying for access and influence. What else explains why [donors are] so keen to donate to the
Clinton Foundation, when discharging its own commitments in India has been, at best, very
reluctant?” 14 The late Christopher Hitchens, writing in 2009, wondered the same: why didn’t these
third world oligarchs “just donate the money directly [to charities in their own country] rather than
distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler”? 15
The Clintons dismissed such concerns. During Hillary’s confirmation hearings before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, members from both parties openly worried about global influence
peddling. Then senator Richard Lugar said it was a serious problem. Lugar is no bomb thrower but as
Time magazine put it, “a paragon of bipartisan collegiality.” 16 He also happened to be a friend of the
Lugar’ s words were direct:
The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor
with the Secretary of State. Although neither Senator Clinton, nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the
Foundation, obviously its work benefits their legacy and their public service priorities . 17
Lugar went on:
But the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a
donation. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers
or their countries . 18
Hillary’s job was all-encompassing and touched on many vital issues with life-and-death
outcomes. As Lugar warned,
The nature of the Secretary of State post makes recusal from specific policy decisions almost impossible, since even localized
U.S. foreign policy activities can ripple across countries and continents. Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the
Foundation comes with the risk it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision . 19
Lugar’s colleagues across the aisle shared his concerns. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the general view. “I think it’s fair to say that Senator
Lugar is not speaking from a partisan’s perspective, but I think he is really expressing a view of the
Committee as a whole.”
Politicians weren’t the only ones nervous about the Clintons’ flow of foreign funds. Mainstream
media outlets like Time warned of “the danger that [foreign funds] might taint Hillary Clinton’s role
as Secretary of State.” 20
Hillary herself rejected the notion that a foreign government giving millions of dollars to her
husband while she served as maestra of American foreign policy might present a problem.
“Ultimately, there is no conflict between the foreign policy of the United States and the efforts of the
Clinton Foundation seeking to reduce human suffering and increase opportunity for people in need,”
she told the senators. 21
But the Clintons’ attempts to downplay or dismiss the issue failed to quell concerns.
Incoming president Obama and his transition team were nervous about the i nfl uence of foreign
funds as well. Before announcing Hillary as his choice for secretary of state, Obama directed his
aides to conduct detailed and extensive negotiations with the Clinton camp over the issue. Doug
Band, a Clinton confidant and top aide at the foundation, negotiated at length with Cheryl Mills, a
former Clinton White House attorney who represented the Obama team. (Mills simultaneously served
on the Clinton Foundation board, and would shortly be appointed Hillary’s chief of staff at the State
Department. Like other key Clinton retainers, she will appear several times in these pages.)
The two sides finally hammered out a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Bruce Lindsey, a
longtime Clinton friend who ran the foundation, inked the deal between the Clinton Foundation and
the incoming administration so Hillary’s nomination could go forward. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s
hard-nosed confidante, signed for the incoming president.
The MOU required the Clinton Foundation to submit to several conditions designed to address
widespread concerns about possible foreign influence coming through donations and speaking fees.
For one thing, the Clintons agreed to submit all future paid speeches to the State Department ethics
office for review. They also committed to publicly disclose on an annual basis the names of any
major donors to the Clinton Foundation and its initiatives. Finally, the Clintons said they would seek
preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions to the Clinton Foundation from
foreign governments or government- owned businesses.
Both Bill and Hillary were unequivocal in stating that they would be transparent about the flow of
foreign money. In her written answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary promised
that “the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.” 22 Bill went on
CNN and said, “If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally and I have people who
contribute to these efforts globally, I think that it’s important to make it totally transparent.” Obama
administration National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor agreed: “Going forward, all
donors will be disclosed on an annual basis, and new donations from foreign governments will be
scrutinized by government ethics officers.” 23
Some Clinton loyalists found these requirements heavy handed; they believed Bill and Hillary
were “forced to go above and beyond the bar that would have been set for anyone else.” 24 But who
else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign
governments and businesses while the other charted American foreign policy? Or would permit one
spouse to conduct sensitive negotiations with foreign entities while in some instances the other
collected large speaking fees from some of those same entities?
For that very reason, the agreement was widely criticized for not going far enough. Senator Lugar
was direct: “The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the Clinton Foundation to
foreswear new foreign contributions when Senator Clinton becomes Secretary of State.” The
Washington Post's editorial page agreed, pointing out that “even if Ms. Clinton is not influenced by
gifts to her husband’s charity, the appearance of conflict is unavoidable.” 25 Th q Post warned, “The
new administration is buying itself a heap of potential trouble with this agreement.” 26
Still, the agreement did the trick. The commitment to disclose and seek preapproval for
government-tied funds left the Senate, the press, and the public with the widespread impression that
these issues had been frilly addressed. Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state by a 94-2 margin.
But the claimed commitment to transparency was fleeting. The Clintons violated it almost
immediately. As we will see, the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose gifts amounting to millions of
dollars from foreign entities and businessmen who needed Hillary’s help as secretary of state to
approve a transaction with serious national security implications. The Clinton Foundation also
collected money from foreign government-owned businesses without getting prior Obama
administration approval. And the pattern of taking money from businesses or individuals that owned
entities that had matters before Hillary would continue unabated.
Some might say it is unfair to connect Hillary’s public career as a US senator and secretary of state
with her husband’s private commercial activities. After all, they both led active public lives and
spent significant amounts of time apart. She seems to prefer their home in Northwest Washington, DC,
while Bill spends much of his time in Chappaqua, New York.
But by their own account, the two often work in tandem and are in regular communication. Hillary
says, “[W]e have an endless conversation. We never get bored. We get deeply involved in all the
work that we do, and we talk about it constantly .” 27 Journalists who have traveled with the Clintons
co nfi rm this. When Andrew Jack of the Financial Times traveled with Bill in Africa for seven days,
he noted “his frequent calls with Hillary during the trip .” 28
Spouses have long been seen as avenues for cronyism, corruption, and influence. That is why
federal government ethics laws require politicians to disclose not just their own financial assets,
holdings, and income, but those of their spouses as well. Enriching a politician’s spouse or family is
one of the most common methods of political corruption. As secretary of state, Hillary pushed for
international anticorruption standards that addressed this very concern.
Others might argue that this is simply a “Bill problem.” They would like to divide the Clintons into
“good Clinton” and “bad Clinton.” Hillary is the “good” one, the devoted and tough-minded public
servant. Bill is the “bad” one, ethically challenged, pursuing money and personal desires. One
magazine headline explained it this way: “Hillary’s big ethical problem: Bill .” 29
But as we will see, this is a crude caricature of their complex relationship. In a way, all that has
really happened is that the Clintons have reversed roles. When Hillary entered the Senate, and then
the State Department, she became the one who had real power, rather than Bill.
How did the Clintons amass so much wealth in such a short period of time? The answer makes for
For one thing, the Clintons have operated at the fringes of the developed world, often appearing to
assist in facilitating huge resource-extraction deals that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The
era of globalization has opened up a Wild West bonanza where profits can be made on a scale not
seen since the height of nineteenth-century colonialism. The Clintons’ most lucrative transactions
originate not in places like Germany or Great Britain, where business and politics are kept separate
by stringent ethical rules and procedures, but in despotic areas of the developing world where the
rules are very different. Money also comes from foreign businessmen in Europe or Canada who have
amassed their wealth in parts of the world where corruption and payoffs are simply a part of doing
We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred
contemporaneous with favorable US policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.
Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation
as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by “close
friends” or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.
Introductions were made, deals struck, and photo ops arranged before an admiring foreign press.
Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted
within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state. Huge donations then flowed
into the Clinton Foundation while Bill received enormous speaking fees underwritten by the very
businessmen who benefited from these apparent interventions.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that in some cases Hillary did nothing at all to ensure these
favorable outcomes. Perhaps these foreign interests made large payments to Bill simply in the hope of
influencing Hillary. Maybe they were mistaken in thinking that multimillion-dollar payments to Bill
and the foundation would have the desired effect. We don’t know. Either way, though, the Clintons
ended up with the money.
I realize how shocking these allegations may appear. Are these activities illegal? That’s not for me
to say. I’m not a lawyer. But as someone once said, the most troubling thing about Washington is not
what’s illegal but what isn’t. The Clintons are lawyers themselves and they know very well what
legal lines they may not cross. By using their legal finesse, the Clintons have often skirted the
boundaries of ethical conduct. They have been frequently censured and criticized for their conduct,
but have usually escaped serious legal consequences. In a way, what you are about to read is similar
to what they have always done, from Little Rock to the Lincoln Bedroom. They are just doing it now
on a truly global scale.
Unsavory foreigners with an interest in climbing higher up the global status chain have clearly seen
the Clintons as a path to respectability and influence.
Take the case of Gulnora Karimova, the eldest daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan. In a country
dominated by organized crime, forced labor, and torture, Gulnora is loathed by her country’s
citizenry. As one US diplomatic cable put it, “Most Uzbeks see Karimova as a greedy, power-hungry
individual who uses her father to crush business people or anyone else who stands in her way. . . .
She remains the single most hated person in the country.” 30 Being the most hated person in Uzbekistan
is saying something. Her father, who still runs the country, is widely reported to have boiled his
political opponents to death in the 1990s.
Karimova is also glamorous and ambitious, and for a while she sported a fashion and jewelry line
she tried to establish in Europe and the United States. According to a “secret/noforn” cable sent from
the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, to the CIA and other intelligence agencies in July 2009, she
was “hoping that a connection with him [Bill] will allow her to establish good relations with the
Secretary of State [Hillary].” 31 How to go about it? She started by cosponsoring a Clinton Eoundation
fundraiser in Monaco. She posed with Bill for a photo at the event and soon NBC’s Today Show
reported that Bill Clinton was “among her friends.” 32
Where it all might have led we will never know, because in 2013 Karimova had a falling out with
her dictator father. As of this writing, she is thought to be under house arrest in Uzbekistan.
Brash Gulnora Karimova was only expressing what so many foreign oligarchs and interested
investors already know. And the Clintons know it, too. Supporters and opponents have called the
Clintons many things over the years, but one word you never hear is naive.
Bill s Excellent Kazakh Adventure
On September 6, 2005, former president Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty,
Kazakhstan. 1 A country with broad steppes and rugged mountains, Kazakhstan was a place where
Genghis Kha n once roamed. More recently, the comedy film Borat lampooned it as an impoverished
country full of incompetents. In truth, however, the country sits atop a vast storehouse of minerals that
includes an estimated $5 trillion worth of natural resources. 2 Highly prized are the country’s immense
uranium deposits — the mineral used to fuel nuclear reactors and build nuclear bombs.
Bill Clinton’s Kazakhstan sojourn was ostensibly an effort to help the country’s HIV/ AIDS patients
gain access to lower-priced antiretroviral therapies. Yet according to the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the United Nations Program on HIV/ AIDS, at the time of Clinton’s visit, only an
estimated fifteen hundred Kazakhs needed such treatments. In 2005 the prevalence of HIV/ AIDS in
Kazakhstan accounted for between 0.1 and 0.3 percent of its 15.4 million citizens, low compared
with African countries like Botswana (24.1 percent) and South Africa (18.8 percent of adults). 3
All the more curious was the fact that Clinton had agreed to public and private meetings with the
nation’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had ruled Kazakhstan as president since 1990. Having
risen through the ranks of the Communist Party during the Soviet days, Nazarbayev dropped the
working-class rhetoric after the collapse of the Soviet Union and reverted to a classic despot. Indeed,
“president” was a selected title. Kazakhstan doesn’t have elections as we think of them in the West.
Nazarbayev regularly wins reelection with more than 90 percent of the vote. (In the last election, the
candidates running against Nazarbayev claimed they voted for him.) 4
In short, Nazarbayev gets what he wants, one way or another. Despite a long marriage and an
airline stewardess for a mistress, he was the father of only three daughters — no sons. Lacking a male
heir, he arranged a relationship with the former Miss Kazakhstan Assel Issabayeva, and impregnated
her via test tube. On April 2, 2005, she gave birth to his Sultanchik. Problem solved. 5
According to the Huffington Post , “Nazarbayev himself is rumored to be one of the richest men in
the world, although no one knows exactly how rich, since he is alleged to have hidden interests in a
variety of businesses.” Kazakhstan’s five billionaires all have close ties to Nazarbayev. Two of them
are his relatives. 6
Nazarbayev craves acceptance from the West. But he has a nasty habit of throwing political
opponents and journalists into jail. Torture is common. The list of Kazakh human rights violations,
according to the US government, besides torture includes arbitrary detention; restrictions on freedom
of speech, press, and assembly; pervasive corruption; and human trafficking.
So why would former president Bill Clinton bestow an air of international respectability on a
backwater billionaire dictator with a treacherous human rights record? And why would he do so on
the eve of a national election in that country, when Clinton’s mere presence could be read as an
endorsement of the dictator’s “candidacy”?
It helps to look to Clinton’s traveling companion, Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra. Short,
compact, and sporting a gray-haired Caesar haircut, Giustra is estimated to be worth several hundreds
of millions of dollars. Bill flew on board the mining magnate’s private jet: a “luxurious MD-87,
complete with a bedroom and shower, gold-plated bathroom fixtures, leather upholstered reclining
seats, flat-panel TVs and original paintings on the cabin walls. The blankets are emblazoned with
‘Giustra Air.’” It features a boardroom and sleeps eighteen comfortably. 7
“The plane is a business tool. No more, no less,” says Giustra bluntly. And one of its useful
functions has been doing the Clintons favors. For some years, Giustra has made his jet available to
Bill to travel the globe delivering big-money speeches, as well as to travel to campaign events for
Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. As a Canadian citizen, Giustra couldn’t donate to Hillary’s
campaign, but he could certainly offer use of his plane to Bill. He could also steer tens of millions to
the Clintons and entities that they control. 8
Giustra built his empire by cutting deals in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. At the
time of his 2005 travels with Clinton, he lived in a palatial 12,000-square-foot home in western
Vancouver. “Obsessively private,” according to Canadian media, he operated out of a thirty-first-
floor corner office on Burrard Street, a sloping boulevard with scenic views of Vancouver’s port.
Less a mining executive than a penny-stock speculator, Giustra made his money pumping and
dumping mining stocks in the Canadian stock exchanges. 9 As the Globe and Mail , Canada’s most
prestigious newspaper, put it in a generally sympathetic portrait, Giustra got rich “through a Byzantine
system of shell companies, furtive share purchases and elaborate compensation schemes.” 10 In
Kazakhstan he was looking to close a large deal.
Giustra had done mining deals in sub-Saharan Africa and South America. He knew how to do
business with autocrats. For an autocrat, the allure of doing a favor for an ex-American president,
especially a former president with a powerful wife, likely held special value. As Giustra admitted in
2006 to the New Yorker in a rare moment of candor, “All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton.
He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.” 11
According to Clinton and Giustra, they first met in 2005. 12 Technically, that might be correct. But
their business ties actually go back decades earlier.
Both men were involved with mining entrepreneur Jean- Raymond Boulle, whose company
Diamond Fields invested in an Arkansas diamond mine that Clinton approved when he was
governor. 13 At the time, Diamond Fields had its eye on an Arkansas state park known to have
diamond deposits. So Boulle went to Little Rock and hooked up with Clinton pal Jim Blair. 14 (Blair
made headlines in 1994 as the man who helped Hillary Clinton turn $1,000 into $100,000 in futures.)
Blair took Boulle to see Governor Clinton and pitched a diamond mine in the Crater of Diamonds
State Park. 15 Boulle claimed the mine could become “one of the world’s largest diamond
producers.” 16 Governor Clinton signed off on the project and helped get the property green-lighted for
mining in 1987. Clinton pal Bruce Lindsey (who went on to become a senior White House adviser
and now serves as chairman of the board of the Clinton Foundation) provided legal services to the
fledgling company. For good measure, Diamond Fields set up its corporate headquarters in Hope,
Bill Clinton’s hometown. 17
When Bill was elected president, Boulle was an invited guest at the inauguration in Washington,
DC. That night, as the Clintons celebrated their victory at several inaugural balls around town,
Hillary wore a 3.5-carat diamond ring that came from one of Boulle’s mines.
Giustra, through a variety of domestic and offshore holding companies, had more than sixty
thousand shares of stock in Diamond Fields in the early 1990s. 18 But by 2005 the public face of the
Clinton-Giustra relationship was all about philanthropy The two would establish something called
the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as a project of the Clinton Foundation.
CGSGI is supposed to foster economic growth in the developing world. Its activities are often sited
near “natural resource industry” projects such as mines or oilfields in which Giustra is invested.
Access to Kazakh mining concessions is highly competitive. Large mining companies from Australia
to Russia vie for them. Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy, was a new player with no background in
the uranium business and was therefore far from the logical choice for Kazatomprom, the Kazakh
atomic energy agency. Other companies with decades of experience in the field should have been first
in line for this lucrative deal. “Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,” said Fadi Shadid, a
senior uranium industry stock analyst. “A second- tier junior player like UrAsia — you’d need all the
help you could get.” 19 UrAsia Energy was a mere shell company. But with Nazarbayev’s approval,
that was about to change.
Giustra had his eye on three mines several hundred miles from Almaty. The deal was obscure from
the start: the mining concessions were transferred to mysterious offshore entities including Jeffcott
Group Ltd., which was registered in the British Virgin Islands. Giustra and others involved in the
venture later claimed they didn’t even know who actually owned the mysterious entity. “We dealt
with corporations and entities that had title to the assets,” said Chris Sattler, executive vice president
of corporate development and investor relations of Uranium One (of which UrAsia Energy would
soon become part). “In fact, we dealt with their representatives. . . . Therefore, we have no
knowledge of the beneficiaries or shareholders behind Jeffcott.” 20 On other occasions, Frank Giustra
claims to have known precisely whom he was dealing with in the transaction.
Clinton’s itinerary included a lavish private feast with the Kazakh dictator, as well as a public
press conference. 21 For the former president it was a reunion of sorts. Clinton and Nazarbayev had
first met back in 1994, when the Kazakh autocrat came to Washington to meet the new president. 22
The two discussed several topics and signed a Charter on Democratic Partnership, “which
recognized Kazakhstan’s commitments to the rule of law, respect for human rights, and economic
reform.” 23 Nazarbayev had a habit of signing documents he had no intention of honoring. Clinton and
Nazarbayev met again in December 1 999, when they discussed a number of issues, one of which
likely included concerns involving two mining and metal companies that were having troubles in
Kazakhstan. A Canadian firm, World Wide Minerals, and a London-based firm, Trans-World Metals,
had seen property confiscated by the Kazakh government. 24
The September 2005 visit had been organized in part by Sergei Kurzin, a round-faced Russian
nuclear physicist from Siberia who had done business in Kazakhstan before. In addition to arranging
the meeting in Almaty, he assisted Giustra in creating UrAsia Energy. 25
It’s unclear if Kurzin and Clinton had met before, but they would have several more meetings in the
years that followed. And they had something else in common: fugitive financier Marc Rich. Recall
that in January 2001, on his last day in office, Clinton had issued a presidential pardon for Rich.
Kurzin had previously worked for Rich traveling around Russia in search of suitable investment
Kurzin, in a 2008 interview with New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Don Van Natta, said
about the visit, “timing was everything.” 27 After the Times piece ran, Kurzin reported getting an angry
phone call from Giustra. The secretive Canadian “yelled like hell at me over the phone after he saw
the piece,” Kurzin said later. “He was furious that I talked to a journalist.” 28
What transpired at dinner with Clinton, Nazarbayev, and Giustra depends on whom you ask. It was
by all accounts a lavish affair, with upward of seventy- five guests.
Bill maintained that the entire visit was about dealing with HIV/ AIDS in Kazakhstan. Giustra
insisted that the mining deal he wanted to secure did not involve Nazarbayev or the Kazakh
government. As he put it, “The mining agreements I reached in Kazakhstan were concluded after
lengthy negotiations with private companies — not the Kazakhstan government.” 29 Bill has gone even
further, claiming that “formal endorsement from the Kazakh government was not required to acquire
the assets.” 30 He went on to make a technical legal argument: “Kazatomprom was not a signatory to
either of the memorandums of understanding signed by Mr. Giustra’ s company.” 31
But these were, at best, elaborate evasions. Corporate executives for the uranium company later
admitted to journalists and US diplomats that Kazakh officials absolutely needed to sign off on the
deal. JeanNortier, CEO of the company that would eventually control the assets, said, “When you do
a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval. UrAsia got the approval, and when
UrAsia merged with Uranium One, that approval was given again.” 32
Leaked State Department cables from the US ambassador in Kazakhstan further refute Bill
Clinton’s claim. Giustra acquired the assets in Kazakhstan through his shell company UrAsia Energy
and then transferred those assets through a merger with a company called Uranium One. 33 According
to a 2009 US diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks, Paul Lewis Clarke, senior vice president of
Uranium One, claimed that Uranium One’s UrAsia acquisitions “were approved by many of the same
people still in power,” including the then prime minister Danial Akhmetov (who later became
minister of defense), and “Kazatomprom president [Vladimir] Shkolnik, then the Minister of Energy
and Mineral Resources.” 34 Any asset transfer of uranium rights needed to be approved by Kazakh
A key Kazakh official involved in the deal was Mukhtar Dzhakishev, the president of
Kazatomprom, the government agency that runs Kazakhstan’s uranium and nuclear energy industry. A
technocrat with pro-Western sympathies, Dzhakishev was eager to do business with the United States
and would later visit Clinton in 2007 at his home in New York. According to Dzhakishev, the
uranium deal came up in discussions that night at the banquet. 36 Clinton and Giustra dispute this.
But more than that, suggestions have been made that Dzhakishev and other Kazakh officials had
already been under pressure for months to close the deal and grant the lucrative uranium concessions
to Giustra. 37 Lor reasons that remain unclear, approval was being held up on the Kazakh end. Giustra
was understandably anxious and may have asked Bill to intervene.
In a 2009 video of a statement to authorities on an unrelated matter, Dzhakishev claimed that then
senator Hillary Clinton pressured Kazakh officials to secure the deal for the Canadians. According to
Dzhakishev, Kazakh prime minister Karim Massimov “was in America and needed to meet with
Hillary Clinton but this meeting was cancelled. And they said that those investors connected with the
Clintons who were working in Kazakhstan have problems. Until Kazakhstan solved those problems,
there would be no meeting, and all manner of measures would be taken.” Massimov returned to his
country and called Dzhakishev and told him to work it out. 38 Dzhakishev then claims he was
contacted by Tim Phillips, an adviser to Bill. According to Dzhakishev, Phillips told him that there
would be no further meetings with Hillary until Kazakh officials approved Giustra’s uranium deal. 39
Dzhakishev was certainly in a position to know. He played a central role in the Giustra uranium
deal. He was among the first Giustra met in Kazakhstan to discuss it. Some time later he met with Bill
Clinton at his home in Chappaqua, New York, to discuss the broader uranium market in Kazakhstan. 40
The alleged threat to withhold American aid would not have been perceived as an idle one. The
Kazakhs received large sums of money from the US government as part of a post-Cold War
nonproliferation program (In 2011, for example, they received $110 million for “combatting
weapons of mass destruction.”) At that time, Hillary sat on the powerful Senate Armed Services
Committee. More specifically, she sat on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Hillary’s subcommittee had responsibility for oversight of nonproliferation programs. 41
Dzhakishev also claimed that Phillips “began to scream” at him that it was important to get the deal
done for “Democrats” involved in it. 42 Dzhakishev says he took Phillips to see Kazakh officials,
including assistant to the president Karim Massimov, who later became prime minister. When
Phillips was asked by the Washington Post about Dzhakishev’s account, he didn’t respond. He has,
however, changed his online resume and has removed any references to having been a Clinton
Foundation fundraiser. 43
Meanwhile, Bill gave Nazarbayev the international credibility he craved. Standing before the
gathered media in front of a large gold-inlaid national seal of Kazakhstan, Bill Clinton took the
podium with a grinning Nazarbayev at his side. 44 Bill talked about his global AIDS work before
praising Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.” Clinton’s glowing
assessment was not shared by anyone in the human rights community. Indeed, Robert Herman, who
worked for the Clinton State Department in the 1990s and later joined the nonprofit Freedom House,
called the statement “patently absurd.” 45 Certainly the US State Department would not agree with
Clinton’s fawning praise. For years, it had categorically stated that Kazakhstan had “failed to
significantly improve its human rights record.” 46
As the international media recorded his words, Bill also came out publicly in support of
Nazarbayev’s bid to have his country head the prestigious Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). “I think it’s time for that to happen, it’s an important step, and I’m glad you’re
willing to undertake it,” he said. Nazarbayev quickly issued a press release proudly claiming support
from Clinton. The ex-president neither refuted nor challenged Nazarbayev’s public relations victory
Clinton’s endorsement was remarkably audacious. The OSCE was primarily a human rights
organization, formed as a result of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. The international body held little
power, but it was an honor Nazarbayev sought. Putting Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan at the helm of the
OSCE was like putting Iran in charge of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It made no sense.
Still, it would be a prestigious appointment for the dictator.
Hillary was at the time a legislative branch commissioner for the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, one of only nine US senators on the panel. In 2004 Hillary had cosigned a
letter to the State Department stating that Kazakhstan’s bid to head up the OSCE “would not be
acceptable” because of widespread corruption and human rights problems. In July 2008 when the
commission held hearings titled “Promises to Keep: Kazakhstan’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship,”
Senator Ben Cardin, Democrat of Maryland and the cochair of the commission, said Kazakhstan’s
“record on human rights and democratization does indeed raise concerns. The State Department’s
yearly reports, as well as those by numerous human rights groups inside and outside of Kazakhstan,
lay out in detail the problem areas.” 47
According to the official transcript, Hillary didn’t show up for the hearings.
Clinton and Giustra left Kazakhstan the day after the banquet. Within forty-eight hours, Giustra’s
company UrAsia signed two memoranda of understanding outlining the transfer of uranium mining
assets, which Kazakh authorities later approved: buying a 30 percent stake in the Kharassan uranium
project and 70 percent in another project — the Betpak-Dala joint venture. 48 The deal stunned longtime
mining observers. Choosing UrAsia to buy into those mines was a “mystery” said Gene Clark, the
chief executive of Trade Tech , an industry newsletter. “UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole
process somehow,” he said. The company was now a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even
exist before.” 49
In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $3 1.3 million. 50 It was the first of
several large donations he would make as he went on to secure other lucrative natural resources deals
in developing countries around the world. We will see him again in other chapters.
As mentioned earlier, at the time of Clinton’s visit, Kazakhstan was on the verge of a national
election. Days after Clinton departed, the opposition party’s campaign headquarters were ravaged by
fire in an arson attack. On October 12 heavily armed police temporarily arrested the opposition
party’s leader. The OSCE said the election “was marred by an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’ and
‘ballot-box stuffing.’” 51
In December 2005 Nazarbayev won reelection with more than 90 percent of the vote. Bill sent him
a note of congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the
most important rewards in life,” he wrote. “At the start of your new term as president, I would like to
express confidence that you will continue to live up to the expectations of your people.” 52 The Kazakh
dictator promptly released Clinton’s congratulatory note to the public.
With the Kazakh concession in hand, UrAsia Energy Ltd. significantly expanded its assets. UrAsia
quickly went about directing shares of the company’s stock to friends in Canada. Giustra took 3
million shares. He gave half a million more to Robert Cross, a former brokerage colleague, whom he
also placed on the board. According to the Globe and Mail , his friend and fellow investment
dealmaker, IanTelfer, received 2.2 million shares of his own. 53
Telfer, like Giustra, had been kicking around in the mining business for decades, involved in
several high-profile penny-stock mining deals. 54 “I’m more of an opportunist than a visionary,” he
admitted. 55 But this deal was special. And he would provide the Clinton Foundation with funds of his
With the shares doled out, UrAsia went public and was “among the largest [offerings] on record”
to be brokered on Canada’s Venture Exchange. 56 Canadian firms BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Canaccord
Adams, and GMP Securities Ltd. handled the placement of the shares, and became supporters of the
Clinton Foundation as well, as we will see. 57
Then phase two began. In February 2007 UrAsia Energy announced that it would merge with
Uranium One, a uranium company based out of South Africa and Canada. 58
Like all transactions involving uranium in Kazakhstan, the merger required approval by the Kazakh
government. That same month, Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, went to Chappaqua for a
private meeting with Bill Clinton. 59 Frank Giustra allegedly arranged the meeting. 60 According to
Dzhakishev, they discussed uranium markets and the future of nuclear power. Just as Giustra needed
Kazakh government approval, the Kazakhs might need US government approval for their aspirations
to purchase a stake in Westinghouse, a major US manufacturer of nuclear power plant components. 61
Yet pressure was mounting in Washington about Nazarbayev’s human rights record and
Kazakhstan’s fitness to head an international human rights body like the OSCE. Senator Joe Biden,
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, fired off a letter on March 13, 2007, to
President Nazarbayev, making it clear he wanted Kazakhstan to clean up its act or he would not
support their bid. “Unless visible progress is attained quickly, I will not be able to support
Kazakhstan in its quest to assume chairmanship of the OSCE.” 62
The Clintons, however, took a different tack. Hillary, who had expressed concerns about
Kazakhstan heading up the OSCE prior to the deal, now was strangely silent. 63 Bill was emboldened:
he invited Nazarbayev to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) as his guest. The Kazakh dictator
was happy to make the trip, and on September 25, 2007, he was a featured attendee at an exclusive
CGI meeting in New York. 64
Two months later Nazarbayev was awarded the OSCE chair, a post he took in 20 10. 65
Meanwhile, in February 2007 shareholders approved the merger between Ur Asia and Uranium
One. 66 Although Giustra tried to characterize the transaction as a Uranium One takeover of his
company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., it was actually a reverse merger. Giustra, his friends, and other
shareholders wound up controlling 60 percent of the new company. 67 And in the months that
followed, they began acquiring uranium assets in the United States itself. 68 Within the next year, they
began negotiations with the Russian State Nuclear Agency, which, in 2009, bought a stake in the
company, as described in the next chapter. 69
Following the lucrative merger, many of the deal’s largest shareholders wrote multimillion-dollar
checks to the Clinton Foundation and its project, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. In
addition to his $31.3 million donation, Giustra announced a multiyear commitment to donate $100
million, and half of his future profits, to the Clinton Foundation. 70 Giustra’s commitments made the
Canadian mining investor one of the largest individual contributors to the Clinton Foundation, rivaling
those far wealthier than himself, like Bill Gates, who has given more than $25 million to the Clinton
As we will see, Bill Clinton would show up at critical times in other developing countries where
Giustra had business. As Canada’s Globe and Mail put it, “it just so happens that Bill Clinton keeps
popping up in places where Giustra is buying resource assets.” 72
The collective commitments and donations from investors who profited from the deal would
ultimately exceed $145 million. 73 (The Clinton Foundation only reports ranges, not exact amounts.)
These investors include the following business associates of Giustra:
• Frank Holmes, another major shareholder in the deal, wrote a check to the Clinton
Foundation for between $250,000 and $500,000. 74 Holmes also lists himself as an
adviser to the Clinton Foundation.
• Neil Woodyer, Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavour Financial, pledged
$500,000 and committed to providing “ongoing financial support.” 75
• Robert Disbrow, a broker at Haywood Securities, which provided $58 million in
capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement, sent between $1 million and $5
million to the Clinton Foundation a few months later. 76
• Paul Reynolds, an executive at Canaccord Capital, Inc., donated in the same range,
between $1 million and $5 million. 77 The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s
• GMP Securities Ltd., another large shareholder in UrAsia Energy, committed to
donating a portion of its profits to the CGSGI. GMP made great money on the private
placement of shares and as an underwriter on UrAsia Energy deals. 78
• Robert Cross, who was a major shareholder and serves as director of UrAsia
Energy, committed a portion of his future income to the Clinton Foundation. 79
• Egizio Bianchini, the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s
Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. 80
BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGSGI’ s March 2008 benefit. 81
• Sergei Kurzin, a Russian dealmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a
shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also made the CGSGI a $1 million pledge. 82
• Ian Telfer, the chairman of UrAsia Energy, who would become the new chairman of
Uranium One, committed $3 million. 83
Bill Clinton hailed the windfall as a selfless philanthropic gesture that would support economic
growth and health care in the developing world. “I’m proud of the coalition in the natural resources
industry that has come together,” he said. 84 A group of Canadian mining investors just happened to
become conspicuously large contributors in the Clinton Foundation over a very short period of time.
Giustra went even further in bringing in funds for the foundation. In 2006, he hosted a birthday
party/fundraiser for Bill Clinton at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto that featured an
impressive guest list. The event was headlined by Kevin Spacey and included Billy Crystal and Bon
Jovi. 85 In March 2008 there was another superstar fundraising gala including Tom Cruise and Robin
Williams in Toronto. 86 In Vancouver on October 17, 2008, Giustra and Clinton addressed the British
Columbia Business Council on corporate social responsibility. 87
Any actions the Clintons may have taken to support Canadian Giustra in the uranium deals could
not be justified on the grounds that they were creating jobs for Americans or helping American
companies be more competitive overseas, the explanation politicians often give to justify doing
favors for companies or donors.
But the international scope of the deals would expand beyond Kazakhstan, Canada, Washington,
and Chappaqua to include some of the most powerful government officials in Russia. The flow of
money would only increase.
Hillary ’s Reset
The Russian Uranium Deal
P erhaps Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin had gotten off to a rough start. When she was running for
the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary had talked tough about the Russian president.
Contradicting President George W. Bush’s oft-quoted statement that he “was able to get a sense of
[Putin’s] soul,” Hillary had pointedly countered that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” When asked about
the comment, Putin shot back, “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.”
But when Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state in January 2009, dealing with Vladimir Putin
would become a major part of her job. And the uranium deal in Kazakhstan, whose shareholders were
sending in tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and were also providing
speechmaking opportunities for Bill, would set the stage to bring Putin into the cast of characters.
The uranium deal that was sealed in 2005 during Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and then
fortified by the 2007 Kazakh- approved merger would soon morph into a third transaction intersecting
with some of Hillary’s most consequential and difficult national security decisions as secretary of
state. And as we will see, there is no evidence that she disclosed to US government ethics officials,
the White House, or her cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered US
In the final years of the Bush administration, relations with Moscow had cooled. The Russian
incursion into neighboring Georgia, Bush’s plans to erect a missile-defense shield, and Russian
pressures on Ukraine had heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers. 1 What President
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had in mind was a “reset.” At Foggy Bottom, Hillary offered the
Kremlin a chance to clean the slate and begin anew. 2
Moscow was all in favor of a reset and viewed it as an opportunity to develop more trade and
investment opportunities with the West. 3 And in spite of her pointed comments about Putin’s soul,
Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state was generally praised in Moscow. Authorities saw her as
offering a “balanced view of US relations with the Russian Federation.” 4 She was “by far not the
worst” outcome for Moscow, said one official, noting that there were advisers around Obama who
were “very critical of our country.” 5 Not a ringing endorsement perhaps, but Hillary was someone the
Russians believed they could work with.
At the heart of the reset was what Newsweek called “a bevy of potential business deals.” 6 These
included deals involving oil and natural gas, which are the backbone of the Russian economy. 7 But
not far behind were Kremlin ambitions to expand its share of the world nuclear market. Uranium,
civilian nuclear power plants, and the technical services that supported them were considered a huge
growth industry for Moscow. 8 In 2006 the Kremlin had approved plans “to spend $10 billion to
increase Russia’s annual uranium production by 600 percent.” 9 Putin considered the nuclear energy
sector “a priority branch for the country, which makes Russia a great power.” 10 Russia not only
wanted to build nuclear plants around the world, it also wanted to control a large chunk of the global
uranium market. 1 1
But an important side note to the Russian reset was how it involved a collection of foreign
investors who had poured vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation and who continued to
sponsor lucrative speeches for Bill. Those investors stood to gain enormously from the decisions
Hillary made as secretary of state.
The Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) handles all things nuclear in Russia. Unlike
the US Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rosatom is not just deeply
imbedded with civilian nuclear power but actually controls the Russian nuclear arsenal. 12
Longtime Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko is a tall, lanky technocrat who served in the Komsomol,
the Soviet Youth League, during the Soviet era. He went on to become energy minister and then prime
minister of Russia while Bill Clinton was president of the United States. (Indeed, when Russian
president Boris Yeltsin made Kiriyenko prime minister in 1998, it brought “instant endorsements”
from the Clinton administration.) 13 He and his agency operate in a special way in Russia, without any
independent supervision from the Russian parliament. Rosatom “is subject only to the decision-
making of the Kremlin,” as one nuclear scholar at UC Berkeley puts it. “Unlike the oil and gas
industries, the nuclear sector is under the direct supervision of the state.” 14
Rosatom not only built the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactors in Iran, it also supplies them
with uranium 15 Rosatom also operates in North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar. 16 As the agency
makes clear in its annual report, it places a primacy on protecting information “constituting state
During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and senior aides received numerous
diplomatic cables discussing Moscow’s nuclear ambitions. In October 2009, for example, she
received a cable exposing Rosatom’s plan to leverage Ukraine into a long-range supply contract with
the Russian state nuclear fuel company, and its efforts to create “zones of pressure” on Eastern
European governments. 17
In December 2009 the US ambassador to Kazakhstan sent a classified cable to Washington laying
out Russian efforts to exert control over Kazakh uranium markets. 18 The cable noted that Rosatom
sought to control this market as part of a broader initiative to reestablish itself as a world power. The
memo also stated that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, was involved in these nuclear
Even before that cable was sent, there were signs of Russian moves on the uranium market. In June
2009 Rosatom bought a stake in Uranium One. It was not a controlling stake, only 17 percent, but the
Russians were just getting started. 20
Uranium One was an inviting target. Production was booming, jumping from 2 million pounds of
uranium in 2007 to 7.4 million in 2010. But Uranium One was also aggressively buying uranium
assets in the United States. By 2010 the Canadian company had “61 ongoing or planned projects on
some 293,000 acres in Wyoming.” 21 The firm also owned ten thousand acres of uranium claims in
Utah, as well as holdings in Texas and South Dakota. 22 In sum, Uranium One was projected to control
up to half of US uranium output by 20 1 5.
In December 2009 Rosatom chief Kiriyenko appeared before the Presidium, a selection of Russian
government officials. He laid out an aggressive plan to acquire uranium assets outside of Russia. “An
opportunity has opened up to buy foreign assets that are profitable and, for now, not very expensive,”
he said. “With this program of buying uranium deposits, we can guarantee this to any customers of
ours.” Then prime minister Putin announced at the meeting that the Russian government would
allocate the money for the transactions to Rosatom’s equity capital. 23
The Kremlin’s move came at a sensitive time. Hillary Clinton was directing negotiations for the
123 Agreement with the Russian government concerning civilian nuclear energy. The 123 Agreement
is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty whose name derives from the fact that it falls under Section 123 of
the US Atomic Energy Act. It requires that the United States have a 123 Agreement negotiated and in
place to make nuclear cooperation possible with foreign countries. In short, as the US State
Department put it, the 123 Agreement with Russia would “support commercial interests by allowing
U.S. and Russian firms to team up more easily in joint ventures.”
The pact had previously been negotiated by the Bush administration, but when Russian forces went
into Georgia in 2008, the administration withdrew a request that Congress approve it. The Obama-
Clinton reset meant that the agreement was back on and (along with input from the US Department of
Energy) that Hillary was in charge. Congress would eventually approve the 123 Agreement in January
In March 2010 Hillary was in Moscow for a meeting with Putin. Putin had set in motion the
purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One by Rosatom only a few months earlier. During a
meeting on March 19, Hillary and Putin discussed a wide variety of issues related to trade. He
expressed displeasure with US trade policy, presumably because Russian companies were affected
by US sanctions. Whether the Uranium One deal was discussed is not known.
The primary purpose of Hillary’s trip was to increase pressure on Iran. Instead, Putin promised
Moscow’s assistance with the completion of a civil nuclear power station by the summer. Hillary
blasted the move, saying it “would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because
we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” 24
As part of its reset with Moscow, the Obama administration wanted to make progress on the New
START nuclear talks and sought commercial opportunities in areas like civilian nuclear power. On
that front, Hillary was optimistic. “If we continue to work together, we can move beyond the
problems to greater opportunities.”
In May 2010 the Obama administration submitted the proposed text of the US-Russian Civilian
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to Congress. Weeks later, Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy
majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One. To some observers in the uranium market, it all made
sense. “It was no accident that Rosatom’s choice fell to Uranium One,” wrote one paper, given the
uranium assets it held. 25
Several multimillion-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal. As we saw
in the previous chapter, one of these, Ian Telfer, was chairman of Uranium One. A longtime mining
investor and associate of Frank Giustra, Telfer made his fortune as a gold investor and has served as
the chairman of the World Gold Council.
The Clinton Foundation also failed to disclose major contributions from entities controlled by
those involved in the Uranium One deal. Thus, beginning in 2009, the company’s chairman, Telfer,
quietly started tunneling what would become $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through a
Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation. 26 According to records released by
the Clinton Foundation, Telfer had personally contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton
Foundation in 2007. But according to Canadian tax records, Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation donated
more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state. The Clinton
Foundation’s public disclosures don’t list Fernwood as a donor. 27
In 2009 Fernwood contributed $1 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative
(CGSCI). 28 In 2010 its donation was $250,000. In 2011 it gave another $600,000 and in 2012 the
amount was $500, 000. 29 According to Canadian tax records, nearly all of the funds CGSCI collects
are transferred directly to the Clinton Foundation in New York. 30 In other words, it operates as a
The fact that these donations are not listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures violates the
Clinton Foundation’s memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House described in
chapter 1, and contradicts Hillary’s correspondence with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It
also raises questions about what other undisclosed multimillion-dollar donations from foreign entities
could have been channeled to the Clinton Foundation.
The Russian uranium deal involved other major Clinton Foundation donors. Two men listed as
“financial advisors” for Uranium One and the Russia deal, Robert Disbrow and Paul Reynolds, were
also multimillion-dollar contributors. 31 Another important shareholder in Uranium One was US
Global Investor Funds, whose CEO was Frank Holmes. 32 Holmes was not only a major contributor to
the foundation, he was also the chairman of Giustra’s Endeavour Mining Capital Corp. Holmes
describes himself as “an advisor to the William J. Clinton Foundation on sustainable development in
countries with resource-based economies.” 33 The managing director for global affairs at Endeavour
Financial during this deal was Eric Nonacs, who simultaneously served as “senior advisor” to the
Clinton Foundation. Nonacs, before taking the job, had been a foreign policy adviser to Bill during
his post-presidential years. 34
As part of the merger with Uranium One, key shareholders, including Telfer and Giustra, were
required to hold their shares for at least six months. 35 (Dzhakishev believes that Giustra made $300
million in the deal.) 36 Giustra’s firm, Endeavour Financial, continued to act as a financial adviser to
Uranium One. In July 2008, for example, they arranged credit for the firm as part of a deal involving
several Canadian investment banks. 37 In early 2008, according to Rosatom executive Vadim Zhivov,
negotiations had already begun between Rosatom and Uranium One to buy a stake in the company. 38
Was Giustra an investor in Uranium One via US Global Investor Funds? He did not return repeated
calls asking for comment. It is unclear whether by 2010 Giustra was still directly involved in the
deal, as he often conducts deals through shell companies. 39
For shareholders of Uranium One, the Russian government acquisition would mean huge payouts.
In addition to giving every shareholder a special one-dollar-per-share dividend, Moscow had big
plans for Uranium One. 40 According to corporate records, Telfer alone had shares and options
amounting to more than 1 .6 million shares. 41
“We would like just to use Uranium One as the global platform for future growth and all the future
acquisitions and all M&A activity,” said Zhivov, who directed the transaction for Rosatom. 42
Moscow wanted Uranium One Inc. “to be transformed into a global growth platform.” 43 This had to
sound lucrative to Canadian investors, though Zhivov admitted there was a “hard road ahead” to
prove that “a Russian state-owned company can . . . play by the rules of the modern developed
Russia wanted the deal for commercial and strategic reasons. The Canadian investors wanted the
deal because it stood to make them richer. But politics in the United States would prove critical.
Because uranium is a strategic industry, the Russian purchase of a Canadian company holding
massive US assets required US government approval. Playing a central role in whether approval was
granted was none other than Hillary Clinton.
When the Uranium One deal was announced in June 2010, news of the bid “panicked some
shareholders and alarmed industry observers worried that the Vancouver-based company might end
up serving the Kremlin’s strategic interests,” as one Canadian newspaper put it. 45
The Kremlin went into full public relations mode. It dispatched Russian ambassador to the United
States Sergey Kislyak to meet with mining executives in Colorado to soothe concerns about the deal.
“Do you mind some investment? It is a normal commercial operation — not something that is operating
on any political guidance,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t matter whether it is uranium or steel or
oil or gas,” Kislyak said. “What is important is that the positive ties between our two countries seem
to be getting more and more expanded. Politically, that is very important.” 46
Kislyak’s distinction between business and politics is highly misleading: the funds for the Uranium
One acquisition came from Putin directly and were approved by the Russian Presidium. And of
course Russia has a history of using natural gas and energy exports to neighboring countries as a
political tool. 47
Four senior congressmen — Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
of Foreign Affairs, Spencer Bachus of Financial Services, and Howard McKeon of Armed Services
— voiced grave concerns about the deal. They were troubled by Rosatom’s “activities — and the
context within which it operates in Russia — [which] should raise very serious concerns for United
States national security interests.” The fact that Rosatom had helped Iran in building the Bushehr
nuclear power plant “should raise red flags. . . . Although Uranium One USA officials are reportedly
skeptical that the transaction would result in the transfer of any mined uranium to Iran, we remain
concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies through direct or secondary proliferation,” they
wrote. “We believe the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government- owned Russian
agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” 48
Wyoming senator John Barrasso also wrote a letter to the Obama administration raising concerns
about Russian control of uranium assets in his state, citing Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting
nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and
In short, a bipartisan group of congressmen felt that Russia could not be trusted to allocate US
uranium in keeping with US nuclear interests. Then congressman Ed Markey pushed a bill in the
House with Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, “expressing disfavor of the Congress regarding the
proposed agreement for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation.” 50
Markey said, “Russia continues to train Iranian nuclear physicists, supply sensitive nuclear
technology to Iran. . . . Does Russia want cooperation with the United States, or with Iran and Syria?
Because it can’t have both.” 51
In light of the obvious national security concerns, Uranium One and Rosatom officials offered
concessions. Uranium One, for example, did not have an export license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) allowing it to ship uranium outside of the United States. Supporters of the deal
argued, therefore, that no one should fear that American uranium might end up in, say, Iranian
reactors. 52 But in correspondence with the NRC, Uranium One executives did not rule out trying to
obtain an export license in the future. They could only say that “Uranium One does not intend today
(and does not envision in the foreseeable future) any export of U308 from the United States derived
from the Uranium One U.S. Facilities.” 53
Despite the glaring concerns, the Russian majority control purchase of Uranium One was approved
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is a small and
somewhat secretive executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate any investment
transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security. Besides the secretary of
state, CFIUS includes cabinet officials such as the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland
security, and the treasury secretary CFIUS wields enormous power to stop or limit investment deals.
Ironically, Uranium One officials, after CFIUS approved the deal, did mention global markets as an
important reason why the deal made sense. “Donna Wichers, Uranium One Senior Vice President,
said her company is pushing for uranium mines in Wyoming with an eye toward growing markets both
in the United States and abroad as countries plan for new nuclear power reactors. ‘We’ve got China
— they’re looking at opening 500 nuclear power plants in the next 40 years; India — several hundred. .
. . So you can see worldwide there is a huge demand for nuclear power.’” 54
There were all sorts of warning signs about Russia’s push into the uranium market. For example, the
US International Trade Commission was in the midst of a large investigation into allegations dating as
far back as 1991 that Russia was dumping uranium on US markets to damage the American uranium
industry. 55 In early 2010 Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, appeared before
a congressional committee and warned about the perils of doing business with state-owned entities in
Russia, stating that “criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors
to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum and precious metal markets.” He didn’t name specific
Russian entities involved, but referred to the problem as “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian
states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.” He
indicated that the United States needed to address the Russian instances of “bribery, fraud, violence
and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.” 56
In the midst of this complex and controversial transaction, which would require US cabinet-level
approval, a small Canadian investment company named Salida Capital became intimately involved
with the Clinton Foundation.
According to Canadian tax records, Salida Capital received in 2010 an anonymous donation of
$3.3 million into their charitable foundation (Salida Capital Foundation), which allowed the tiny firm
to make the dramatic announcement that it would contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. 57 In
2010 it donated $780,220 to the Clinton Foundation. This amounted to about 90 percent of all
Salida’s charitable giving that year. It was part of a multimillion-dollar commitment that would send
more than $2.6 million to the Clintons between 2010 and 2012. 58
Salida Capital also cosponsored a speech by Bill Clinton on May 21, 2010, in Calgary, Canada.
While the speech was publicly listed by the Clintons as an event for “The Power Within,” a Canadian
motivational-speaking organization, according to State Department documents filed by Bill Clinton’s
office, sponsors for the event included Salida Capital.
Salida Capital invests in natural resource companies, including several in the Russian-dominated
portions of Ukraine. In 2010, when Salida moved aggressively into the Ukrainian market, their chief
business partner in the country happened to be the personal adviser to Energy Minister Yuri Boyko,
who helped create the trading company Vladimir Putin used to control the Ukrainian natural gas trade.
Boyko was described in a confidential State Department cable as being “very close to Russia” and as
the “point of contact for the Kremlin” on energy dealings in the country. 59
In 2011 a company named Salida Capital would be identified in a Rosatom annual report as a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear agency. 60 Is it the same firm? There is
compelling evidence that it is, but we cannot say for sure. 61
I contacted Salida Capital in Toronto on three occasions and provided it with the opportunity to
deny that it is connected to the Salida Capital listed as a subsidiary of Rosatom. It has refused
The timing of events raises questions. If it were the same firm, an entity owned and controlled by
Rosatom fiinneled millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the very time Hillary would have
been involved in deciding whether to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. 62
But the Clintons’ fortune didn’t end there. In June, shortly after the Rosatom deal was announced,
Bill was in Moscow for a particularly well-compensated speech. He was paid $500,000 to deliver
remarks at an event organized by a firm called Renaissance Capital (RenCap). 63 Bill had not given a
speech in Russia in over five years and then it had been for a British firm, Adam Smith International.
His pay for that speech was only $195, 000. 64
RenCap, which is registered in Cyprus, is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with
close ties to Putin. In correspondence with the State Department seeking approval for the speech,
Clinton’s office simply describes the firm as “an investment bank focusing on emerging markets.”
According to Businessweek , when Putin became president of Russia in 2000, RenCap “hired several
executives with connections to the Kremlin and Russian intelligence service, now known as the FSB
[Russian Domestic Intelligence Service].” Yuri Kobaladze, executive director at the firm, served for
thirty-two years as a KGB and SVR (the foreign intelligence arm of the Russian government) officer,
retiring with the rank of general. 65 Yuri Sagaidak, the deputy general director at RenCap, was a
colonel in the KGB. 66 Vladimir Dzhabarov served simultaneously as an officer in the FSB and first
vice president at RenCap from 2006 to 2009. 67
RenCap was also watching the Uranium One deal. Only three weeks before Clinton’s speech, on
May 27, RenCap had been pushing Uranium One stock. “We believe the company is well positioned
to provide impressive volume growth in the global sector and play the uranium spot price recovery,”
RenCap wrote in a twenty-eight-page report on the company. It actively encouraged investors to buy
the stock. 68
Clinton’s hour-long, half-million-dollar speech on the theme of Russia “going global” was
followed by a plenary session that included Renaissance Capital executives and senior Russian
During his Moscow visit, Bill also met with Putin himself.
Just days earlier the FBI had made a series of arrests, breaking up a Russian spy ring. Ten sleeper
agents, using encrypted data transferred through digital images, invisible ink, and a sophisticated
system for transferring information by switching bags at a train station in Queens, had been broken up.
Among the spy ring’s targets: a leading fundraiser for Hillary who also happened to be a Clinton
friend. A Russian sleeper agent named “Cynthia Murphy” was instructed “to single out tidbits
unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources close to State Department.” 69 According to the
FBI, intercepted communications showed that the chief assignment of the ring would be “to search
and develop ties in policy-making circles in U.S.” 70
When Bill sat down with Putin, it didn’t take long for the subject of Russian espionage to come up.
“You have come to Moscow at the exact right time,” Putin told the former president, according to the
New York Times . Waving a finger at him, Putin continued, “Your police have gotten carried away,
putting people in jail.” 71 In response, “Clinton appeared to chuckle.” 72
Clinton and Putin had a close relationship. President Boris Yeltsin first appointed Putin prime
minister in 1999, while Bill was still president, and they had remained in contact ever since. In
January 2009, while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill had gone to Putin’s private party at
the Sheraton, where he was greeted by the Russian leader as “our good friend” before cheering him
with vodka shots. The pair then headed off to a private room where they “talked deep into the
night.” 73 In September 2013, as the Ukrainian crisis built, Clinton offered what the Russian news
agency RIA Novosti called “Rare U.S. Praise for Putin” on CNN. Clinton described the Russian
leader as “very smart” and “brutally blunt.” When he was asked by CNN’s Piers Morgan if Putin ever
reneged on a deal, Clinton responded: “He did not. He kept his word on all the deals we made.” 74
Remember, for the Russian purchase of Uranium One to go through, it required approval by CFIUS,
of which Hillary was a member. “We have provided all relevant information requested in the U.S.,
and elsewhere and we expect approval in due time,” said spokesman Dmitry Shulga. 75
Hillary Clinton had long had a reputation as a CFIUS hawk, opposing the sale of US strategic assets
to foreign governments. She had also been a consistent critic of lax reviews by that body in the past.
After a Bush administration CFIUS review approved the 2005 purchase of several ports in the United
States by the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, then senator Clinton was quick to
denounce it. When the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the matter in early 2006,
Hillary promptly assumed the role of chief prosecutor. She not only argued that the CFIUS decision
was wrong, she condemned administration officials for failing to consider the national security
implications of the ports deal. She was particularly concerned because the deal involved not just a
foreign company, but a foreign government. “For many of us,” she said, “there is a significant
difference between a private company and a foreign government entity.” 76
In 2007 Hillary led the charge to pass legislation to significantly strengthen CFIUS. And during her
2008 presidential bid, it was Hillary alone among the major candidates from either party who raised
the case for strengthening CFIUS as an important way to protect America’s economic sovereignty and
national security. Her presidential campaign rightly described her as “an outspoken proponent of
strengthening CFIUS.” 77
When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton continued to support a robust CFIUS and led
efforts by the panel to block Chinese companies from buying a mining business, a fiber-optic
company, and even a wind farm in Oregon. 78
But however hawkish Hillary might have been on other deals, this one sailed through. The Russian
purchase of Uranium One was approved by CFIUS on October 22, 2010. Hillary’s opposition would
have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the
president. That never happened.
The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a
private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when
Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton
Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold.
In 2010, in reporting to the US government, Russian officials said they were looking to buy just
slightly more than 50 percent of the company and promised “not [to] increase its share in Uranium
One, Inc.” 79 But by the beginning of 2013, the Russian government moved to buy out the company’s
other shareholders entirely. Today it owns the company outright. 80
Xhe Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium assets raised serious national security
concerns for precisely the same reasons Hillary had condemned previous deals. A foreign
government would now have direct control over a very valuable commodity; the Russian government
would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues every year; and it would allow the Russian
government to use Uranium One assets to honor supply contracts with US reactors while treeing up
other uranium assets to send to more dangerous regions of the world — where Russia was already
known to be involved. Lawmakers in Washington had raised these concerns.
Still, despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals, Hillary didn’t object. Why the
apparent reversal? Could it be because shareholders involved in the transactions had transferred
approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives? Or because her husband had
profited from lucrative speaking deals arranged by companies associated with those who stood to
profit from the deal? Could it be because Bill — and possibly she herself — had quietly helped build
the uranium assets for the company to begin with? These questions can only be answered by Hillary
herself. What is clear is that based on State Department ethics documents, she never revealed these
transactions to her colleagues, the Obama White House, or to Capitol Hill.
For Moscow, the approval was a major victory. Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, told Russian
president Dmitry Medvedev that the United States would now become “a key market” for Rosatom 81
Because Uranium One also owned the rights to those large mines in Kazakhstan, uranium flows to
Russia increased. As one Uranium One official put it in a corporate presentation, the company’s
operations “facilitate substantial exports of uranium to Russia.” 82
In 2013 Rosatom announced plans to take 100 percent control of Uranium One. It didn’t even
bother to ask the Obama administration for approval this time, because the transaction “involved the
same parties” and the move did not technically “change the corporate structure of Uranium One.” 83
Pravda hailed the move with an over-the-top headline: “Russian nuclear energy conquers the
world.” Taking lull control of Uranium One would “consolidate control over uranium assets in the
former Soviet Union and pave the way for the expansion of access to resources in Australia and South
Africa.” 84 The Russian takeover of Uranium One yielded shareholders a premium price. Rosatom
offered Telfer and other shareholders a 32 percent premium on the share price, yielding them
In the fall of 2013 Rosatom passed operational control of the Bushehr nuclear reactor to Iran, and
in September Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that “Tehran and
Moscow will cooperate in the fixture construction of a second nuclear power plant at Bushehr,”
adding that “construction work is to start soon.” 86
Meanwhile, Uranium One made an audacious bid to mine for uranium on state land in Arizona, near
the Grand Canyon. Using a shell corporation called Wate Mining, it proposed accessing the site
through Navajo Nation lands. The company apparently hoped that the Navajo Nation wouldn’t notice
who controlled the company, which was obscured on government forms. “The fact that the applicant
failed to frilly disclose ownership information does not sit well,” said the Navajo Nation Department
of Justice. 87 Plans for the mine have been suspended in light of protests. 88
Global deals involving the transfer of funds and nuclear technology were not limited to Russia.
Another troubling transaction that occurred during the same period, while Hillary was in the Senate,
involved characters representing India whose political interests appear to have been advanced by
their friendship with the Clintons — accompanied in turn by large donations and payments.
Howto Win a Medal by Changing Hillary’s Mind
In May 1998 the government of India shook the world. With a series of five underground nuclear
tests, the government set off a corresponding series of political explosions.
Code-named Operation Shakti (the word means “strength” in Sanskrit), the 58th Engineer Regiment
of the Indian Army took special measures to ensure that test preparations went undetected by the
United States. With its bold act, India, in the words of one of the country’s leading commentators,
“acquired de facto nuclear weapon status.” 1
For President Bill Clinton, the tests were a surprise slap in the face. Preventing the spread of
nuclear weapons and technologies had been a Clinton administration priority. Early in his presidency
he had launched “a personal initiative to halt, roll back and eliminate the nuclear [programs] of both
India and Pakistan.” 2 The tests were an embarrassing public dismissal of these efforts.
Clinton was livid. He erupted in a “volcanic fit” when he heard the news, according to foreign
policy adviser and longtime friend Strobe Talbott. 3 Clinton took the tests as a personal affront, as
well as a threat to the nuclear nonproliferation and test ban treaties he was pushing. He responded
with “an intense effort to threaten international isolation” unless India signed the test ban treaty and
“took other steps to reduce nuclear dangers.” 4
The nonproliferation treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970 and recognized five countries as
nuclear powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. The NPT was
designed to prevent any other country from attaining nuclear weapon status. If a country signed the
treaty, it would be given the benefit of access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Clinton chose to denounce India’s nuclear tests with Chinese president Jiang Zemin at his side.
(This was particularly offensive to India, which considered Beijing a regional rival.) He also lent
American support to United Nations Resolution 1172, which called on India to stop testing and
required them to become parties to the NPT. But most importantly, Clinton imposed a series of
restrictions on the export of US nuclear technologies to India with the express purpose of “keeping the
lid on Indian nuclear and ballistic-missile technology.” 5
Clinton’s India sanctions were motivated by a strong belief in the importance of the NPT. Bill and
Hillary Clinton have vigorously supported enforcing and extending the treaty. Both as first lady and
then as a US senator, Hillary shared her husband’s fervent support for the NPT and the test ban
treaty. 6 In a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs , then senator Clinton declared, “As President, I will
support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” 7 Throughout the 2008
presidential campaign and during her confirmation as secretary of state, she voiced continued support
for staunch nonproliferation efforts. “The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the
nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the
regime,” she said during her Senate confirmation hearings. As secretary of state she promised that the
administration would “place great importance on strengthening the NPT and the nonproliferation
regime in general ... we must reinvigorate our commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear terrorism.” 8
India had never signed the nonproliferation treaty and was not about to. But as the Clinton
administration passed and the Bush administration took office in January 2001, New Delhi began
thinking about getting the sanctions lifted. Hoping to make that happen they hired expensive lobbyists
and encouraged Indians in the United States to build rapport with both political parties. There were
also a series of large payments made at pivotal moments to the Clinton machine. Some of these
payments came in the form of lucrative speeches, paid for by Indian entities with a direct interest in
having the sanctions lifted. Others came in the form of donations to both Hillary’s Senate campaigns
and her presidential bid, by those who could legally do so. But mostly, they came as millions in
donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Tracing the real source of some of those millions would prove impossible, but their effect on the
Clintons’ policy toward India seems apparent. In the end, both Bill, who initially imposed the
sanctions against the Indian government, and Hillary, who supported that policy, played a vital role in
getting them lifted. Shortly after the legislation passed, the Indian government granted one of its most
prestigious civilian awards to a close Clinton family friend precisely because, as they saw it, he got
Hillary to support the legislation.
oant Chatwal might not strike one as a consummate political insider. A Sikh from India with piercing
brown eyes, Chatwal arrived in the United States in 1975 by way of Ethiopia and Canada. Earlier in
his life, Chatwal served in the Indian military as a jet pilot. In the United States he set about building
a commercial empire of Indian restaurants and hotels, primarily in New York City. First came the
Bombay Palace restaurant chain, followed by the luxurious Hampshire Hotels. Chatwal is a study in
contrasts — a globe-trotting businessman with celebrity friends and high-level political connections,
yet an earthy Punjabi who still enjoys eating s arson ka saag. Even after more than thirty years in the
United States, he remained a staunch Indian patriot, and still refers to India as “my motherland.”
His deep friendship with the Clintons began with a mutual love for Indian cuisine. Bill first tasted
Indian food at a political fundraiser held at Chatwal’s New York City restaurant, the Bombay
Palace. 9 But, as we will see, some savory financial transfers helped, too.
Chatwal has always been exceedingly blunt about how and why he steered money in an effort to
influence events in Washington. “I used to spend money on senators and congressmen,” said Chatwal.
While in 1988 that “investment” had been in Michael Dukakis, Chatwal “next started betting on
various presidents” and “happened to click with Clinton.” 10 The former governor of Arkansas was
exceedingly thankful. Chatwal says Clinton offered him whatever post he wanted once he was elected
president, but Chatwal said he simply wanted closer US-Indian relations. When Hillary ran for the
Senate in 2000, Chatwal became one of her largest soft- money donors. 11
By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, Chatwal was firmly in the Clintons’ inner circle. Bill
appointed him a trustee of the Clinton Foundation, an appointment reserved only for longtime friends
and large financial benefactors. Chatwal had lavished money on the Clintons, including hundreds of
thousands in soft-money donations and millions in campaign funds raised, and he continued his
largesse once Bill was a private citizen. Chatwal helped arrange for millions of dollars in lucrative
speaking fees and steered additional millions to the Clinton Foundation. 12 When Hillary ran for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, he was cochair of her presidential exploratory
committee. He even received that most prized of gifts in the Clinton universe: an invitation to attend
Sant Chatwal’s son Vikram also became a Clinton benefactor. Widely known for his partying
ways, Vikram became Hillary’s 2008 campaign bundler. 13 Tooling around New York in an Aston
Martin, he was known to run up large bar tabs and date everyone from Lindsay Lohan to various
supermodels. Like his father a committed Sikh, he was known around town as the “Turban Cowboy.”
Vikram considers the Clintons close friends. According to the New York Observer, ‘“I know him
[Bill Clinton] very well,’ he said of the former President. He added that the two men have often sat
down and talked about books and Gandhi, as well as, he said, ‘women and models I’ve dated. He,
like any man in the world, appreciates beauty.’” 14
When Vikram got married in India in 2006, Bill Clinton attended the wedding. Guests “were
welcomed by dancing eunuchs, elephants painted entirely white and whitewashed men wearing angel
wings on white horses.” 15 The Clintons also attended Sant Chatwal’s other son’s wedding, a more
calm affair at Tavern on the Green in New York in 2002.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Sant Chatwal has a history of legal trouble involving financial
transactions and has declared bankruptcy on at least one occasion. In 1995 he came under a cloud of
legal suspicion concerning the bilking of millions from Indian banks. In the United States he was
chased by the IRS and the New York State government for $30 million in unpaid taxes. 16 In a visit to
India with Clinton in May 2001, Chatwal was arrested and charged with defrauding the New York
City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. “He posted bail equivalent to
$32,000, then fled India, boarding a flight to Vienna, despite an attempt by authorities to detain him”
reported the New York Daily News. 11
In 1997 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) “sued Chatwal over his role as a
director and a guarantor of unpaid loans at the failed First New York Bank for Business,” the
Washington Post reported. Regulators were frustrated that Chatwal claimed he couldn’t repay the
money (reported to be “in excess of $12 million”), despite the fact that he continued to live in a New
York penthouse worth millions of dollars. 18
Three years later, with no settlement on the horizon, Chatwal entertained guests in his lavish
penthouse for Hillary’s Senate campaign, raising $500,000. 19 On December 18, 2000, just a few
months after the fundraiser (while the Clintons were still in the White House), the FDIC “abruptly
settled” the case against Chatwal, according to the Washington Post, allowing him to pay a mere
$125,000 and walk away.
The Chatwals undoubtedly enjoyed the perks and access that came with contributing and raising
money for politicians like the Clintons. But what Sant Chatwal wanted for all that money extended far
beyond the ordinary transactions that take place in Washington. He wanted to i nfl uence American
policy toward India, particularly as it related to the sensitive area of nuclear technology. He openly
admitted that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal
goes through.” 20 Some of that money was spent in India, where, according to a leaked diplomatic
cable between the US embassy in Delhi and the US State Department, at least two ministers and
several members of parliament were claimed to have been paid off, with reports of “two chests
containing cash” ready for use as “pay-offs” to win support for the Indian-US nuke deal. Chatwal was
alleged to be involved, but he maintains the allegation is baseless. 21 What we do know is that
millions were spent on cultivating the relationship with the Clintons, who not only received money
directly through lucrative speaking deals, but also reaped millions in donations to the Clinton
On July 18, 2005, President George W. Bush and visiting Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh
signed a letter of intent at the White House to allow India access to US nuclear technology. The
agreement was part of a Bush administration policy to work closely with India to serve as a
counterbalance to China. But the agreement required Congress to amend US law and make a special
exception for India.
The plan met immediate criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans both argued it
would lead to greater nuclear proliferation by rewarding a country that had violated the NPT.
Remarkably silent during this debate was Hillary Clinton, who not only sat on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, but was also a senior member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities, which dealt specifically with nuclear proliferation issues.
In September 2005 Bill Clinton flew on Frank Giustra’s plane from Uzbekistan to Lucknow, India.
The capital city of the state of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was not Mumbai or any of India’s other
cosmopolitan cities. Clinton’s visit set off an intense flurry of local interest and activity. The road
from the airport to his hotel was “freshly tarred” for his arrival and party workers hung banners along
the road praising Clinton’s visit. Along for the ride were Giustra, Doug Band, fundraiser Tim
Phillips, and Sant Chatwal, who had made the arrangements. 22
Clinton and his companions checked into the Taj, a palatial hotel with graceful pillars on the banks
of the Gomti River in the heart of the city’s business district. Bill’s six-person delegation had two
entire floors to themselves and enjoyed a large feast with evening entertainment. Before the festivities
began, Clinton joined Chatwal for a private meeting where he was introduced to an obscure member
of the Indian parliament named Amar Singh. 23
Amar Singh has an easy swagger and a broad grin, marking a flamboyant manner and a combative
attitude that has suited him well in the sharp-elbowed world of Indian politics. (He once got into a
fistfight on the floor of the Indian parliament.) Heavyset, with thick glasses and thinning hair, Singh
has another notable quality. His “access to big money is . . . legendary,” according to the Indian
Singh would be implicated in a number of financial and vote -buying scandals in Indian politics. In
2011 he was indicted on charges that he bought votes in parliament to secure the nuclear deal. 25 A
trial was never held.
What Singh discussed with Clinton and Chatwal was never made public. They met for about an
hour, but in that short span of time a close collaboration and friendship between the Indian politico
and both of the Clintons began.
After the meeting, the three men headed off for a big bash at the state chief minister’s bungalow.
According to reports, the “bullet proof dining hall” was outfitted with twenty-six air conditioners and
the event included 150 members of India’s elite — including Bollywood stars, industrialists, and
politicians — who dined on delicacies while enjoying live performances. 26 There were dancers and
music from jazz fusion to a song titled “Sexy Rocksy Chicago Girl.” 27
Despite having only just met, Clinton and Singh offered immediate and enthusiastic praise for one
another. Singh took to the podium to praise Clinton for his “immense love for India” and proposed
that he be granted Indian citizenship. 28 Clinton then rose and talked about his love for India and
addressed the host as “friend Amar Singh.” The former president then publicly extended an invitation
for Singh to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York in a few days as his guest.
Clinton spent fifteen hours in Lucknow and then left. Opposition parties denounced the lavish party
and criticized Singh and state officials for, in the words of one Indian newspaper, “hosting a mega
bash for former U.S. President Bill Clinton at a time when hundreds were dying in the State due to
Japanese encephalitis.” 29 Singh was openly triumphant, explaining to the media how Clinton’s visit
helped his party “score over its rivals.” 30
Clinton’s visit was a major coup for Singh. Asked later how he managed to get Clinton to visit his
town, Singh said, “I would say he is a charming man and very kind to lesser mortals like me. I don’t
see any other reason for him to take this trouble.” 31
Following their brief meeting Singh was immediately — and mysteriously — elevated in Clinton
World. Singh took Bill Clinton up on his invitation to attend CGI in New York. The massive gabfest
was attended by thousands of politicians, entrepreneurs, and so-called deep thinkers. During the Cold
War, the Soviet hierarchy was reflected in its arrangement on Lenin’s Tomb during the annual May
Day parade. In the Clinton universe, the hierarchy was reflected in the seating chart at CGI; it allowed
people to figure out who was in and out of the Clinton orbit. In 2005 Singh not only attended the
Global Initiative, he was granted a place at the head table. It was a remarkable elevation for a man
who was in all other respects a complete unknown. As one Indian- American publication put it when
they interviewed him after the Initiative meeting, Singh “could not explain why the Clintons gave him
space at the head table.” He told them,
If they let me to sit on the head table, the same question was asked to me by the prime minister of Mauritius — which country are
you heading? I said I belong to Uttar Pradesh and am a humble political worker. They were also astonished. ... So, I don’t know
what it is. [Bill] Clinton is the best person to answer this question why he gave me that kind of honor . 32
Following the Clinton confab, Singh had a private dinner with the Clintons at their home in New
York. When asked, Singh refused to say who else was at the dinner. During the visit Singh said he
cultivated his relationship with Hillary Clinton. “I met Madame Clinton and in spite of her busy
schedule, she was kind enough to give me considerable amount of time on one-on-one meeting,” said
Singh. 33 (Apparently he came bearing gifts; he gave the senator from New York perfume oils in a Taj
Mahal presentation case.) Singh’s relationship with the Clintons also drew the interest of the Indian
media, which was well aware of his antics, and noted that he “seems to dote on the Clintons.” 34
In 2006 a bill was introduced in Congress called the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful
Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. Its purpose: to finalize an agreement that would gradually
lift restrictions on nuclear trade with India. Hillary was both a senior member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and a cochair of the Senate’s India Caucus, which a group of senators formed to
work together with Indian government officials to improve US-India ties. But she showed no
immediate favor for the Hyde Act as it started to make its way through Congress. The Times of India
noted in 2006 that “India could be looking at the possibility of a Democrat presidency, Hillary
Clinton, Obama, or anyone else — friends of India doubtless, but perhaps opponents of the nuclear
Hillary supported a series of amendments that would impose stricter terms on the Indian
government. These included three amendments offered by Senators Barbara Boxer, Byron Dorgan,
and Russell Feingold. One was a “killer amendment” that would have effectively gutted the bill by
capping India’s fissile production. But that amendment failed. The initial legislation passed, but there
would be additional legislation that would need to be signed, and Hillary’s role was central in getting
that approved. Hillary was still a reluctant and questionable supporter of the bill, prompting a
headline in the Indian American media that the community was “upset” with her stance on the issue. 36
As the New York Times reported, it was Hillary “whose support is viewed by Indian- American
leaders as crucial to winning broader Democratic backing for the plan.” 37
Up to this point the Clinton Foundation had experienced only limited public success in securing
contributions from Indians. But now, those with a keen interest in seeing the nuclear deal approved
began steering money to the Clintons.
Indian industrialists and elites, who could not contribute to Hillary’s political campaigns, much
less vote for her, started making highly publicized appearances at Clinton campaign fundraising
events. In June 2007 Chatwal put together a dinner for Clinton featuring Indian billionaires Srichand
Hinduja and Lakshmi Mittal. The fundraisers targeted Indians who were now American citizens or
who had permanent status. “They [Hinduja and Mittal] can’t give money,” noted Chatwal. “It’s to
bring a little attraction.” The attraction of course was for Indians in the United States who could
donate, and who might want to do business with these industrialists. 38 These introductions are worth a
great deal to those in a position to exploit them.
Hinduja and Mittal couldn’t donate to Hillary’s presidential campaign, but they could and did write
large checks to the Clinton Foundation. (Mittal contributed between $1 million and $5 million.)
Indeed, India quickly became a rich vein of Clinton Foundation support. In Washington, the
Confederation of Indian Industry hired lobbyists to push for a nuclear deal; at the same time, they sent
the Clinton Foundation a check for between $1 million and $5 million. 39 (These donations were
revealed only after Hillary’s nomination as secretary of state, and while the foundation is no longer
required to disclose donors since she left office, once the nuclear deal was sealed such donors
appeared to cease their generosity.) The Hindustan Construction chairman and managing partner, Ajit
Gulabchand, donated money while in New York in late September 2007. 40 Today Hindustan
Construction is involved in several nuclear-power construction projects in India. And there were
mysterious donations never really accounted for — as we will see.
By the summer of 2008 Hillary’s presidential bid had failed and the United States Nuclear
Cooperation Approval Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (H.R. 7081) — a bill finalizing the export
of nuclear technologies to India — required action in the US Senate. Hillary had endured a bruising
presidential nomination fight against Senate colleague Barack Obama, who would now become the
Democratic standard-bearer. But when it came to the nuclear deal, Indian officials still looked to
Hillary. According to Professor Vijay Prashad of Trinity College in Connecticut, “Obama’s caution
about the deal put the fear of failure through elite circles in New Delhi, and so pressure mounted to
get Washington to act. Senator Hillary Clinton’s nod was considered to be essential.” 41
Notably enough, the most important Clinton advisers on nuclear proliferation matters issued
blistering criticisms of the nuclear deal. Strobe Talbott, a longtime friend of both Bill and Hillary
who had served in the State Department during Bill’s presidency, wrote scathingly that with the terms
of the agreement, “the [Bush] administration granted India almost all the privileges of an NPT
member, especially with regard to helping India develop its civilian nuclear power industry. ... In
return, the United States (and the world) received nothing in the form of concrete Indian steps toward
nuclear restraint in its military programs.” The deal was “really a step toward a breakdown in the
international nonproliferation regime.” 42
Robert Einhorn, Hillary’s adviser on nuclear proliferation during the 2008 presidential bid, was
also withering in his criticisms of the deal, which he strongly opposed. Einhorn had also served in the
State Department during Bill’s presidency, and Hillary would tap him in 2009 to handle proliferation
issues during her tenure as secretary of state. Einhorn called the deal “a radical departure from
longstanding legal obligations and policies that precluded nuclear cooperation with states not party to
the Nonproliferation Treaty.” 43
In short, the agreement severely threatened the NPT that Bill and Hillary themselves had strongly
supported. As the Times of India put it, “Why is this deal important? Because for the first time,
someone has decided to let India have its cake and eat it too. You stay out of the NPT, keep your
weapons, refuse full scope safeguards, and yet get to conduct nuclear commerce in a system that is
dead against such a formulation. That’s the bottom line of this deal.” 44
It was for this reason that additional longtime Clinton friends and allies, like Congresswoman
Ellen Tauscher, also opposed the 2008 nuclear deal. In an apocalyptic New York Times op-ed piece,
Tauscher warned that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — for 50 years, the bulwark against the
spread of nuclear weapons — would be shredded and India’s yearly nuclear weapons production
capability would likely increase from 7 bombs to 40 or 50.” She continued: “The Indian nuclear deal
threatens international security not only by undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding
India’s nuclear weapons program. That’s because every pound of uranium that India is allowed to
import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium for its bomb program.” 45
A few months after her piece, Tauscher was tapped by Hillary to serve as her under secretary of
state for arms control and international security at the State Department. 46
Back in 2008 Bill was paid $150,000 to give a satellite video address to the India Today Group, a
media conglomerate whose chairman, Aroon Purie, was strongly in favor of the nuclear deal. 47
According to the Clintons’ financial disclosures, required by Senate ethics rules, Bill had not given a
paid speech in India for more than five years. But as the Indian nuclear deal vote loomed, he sat down
in his Harlem office and made comments about world events to a live audience of Indian corporate
and government officials gathered at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi. 48
Clinton discussed several subjects, including the looming US-Indian nuclear deal, and reassured
the audience that while “some Democrats have some questions about the agreement ... the new
government tends to honor agreements of the previous one.” In other words, if the deal was approved
in Congress in March 2008, the next president, whether Republican or Democrat, would likely honor
As the drive to get the Clintons on board mounted, Sant Chatwal helped organize one of Bill’s
biggest public speaking paydays, arranging for him to receive $450,000 to speak at a London charity
event. The speech, noted the Chicago Tribune , brought him $170,000 more than he “charged for
ordinary overseas for-profit appearances.” 49
Apparently the father of the hostess was surprised by how much Bill was paid. “If we had been
charged less, we could have given a bit more” to charity, he said. Bill’s fee accounted for 30 percent
of the $1.5 million raised at the event for global relief efforts. 50
In late September 2008, with the fate of H.R. 7081 still very much in question, Indian prime
minister Manmohan Singh arrived in New York and met with a core group to discuss the fate of the
nuclear cooperation deal. Huddled together in the Kennedy Rooms at the Palace Hotel, Manmohan
Singh plotted strategy with Chatwal, Amar Singh, and others. 51
Hillary had not been a supporter of the bill; indeed, her closest aides were all publicly opposed to
it. But in September 2008, as the bill’s fate hung in the balance, Amar Singh sat down for a two-hour
dinner in Washington with Hillary. Opposition to the bill had come primarily from Democrats.
Hillary had supported the “killer amendment” two years earlier. It was even possible that the Senate
might not vote on the bill. Yet in the days following, Singh expressed confidence based on what he
heard from Hillary that the deal would go through. 52
Having grown accustomed to the deal-making and influence-buying ways of the Indian parliament,
Singh was open with the Indian media about what transpired in New York. Hillary Clinton probably
considered herself fortunate that his comments were not reported in the American media. According
to Singh, Hillary reassured him that Democrats would not hinder the passage of the India-US civil
nuclear agreement through the US Congress. 53 When Indian journalist Aziz Haniffa asked if Senator
Clinton “has promised and pledged to give all the support and try to pass [the deal] through in the
Congress,” he said yes, adding, “because of the Clintons I am close to the Democrats.” 54
Five Democratic senators opposed to the bill — Robert Byrd, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel Akaka, Russ
Feingold, and Tom Harkin — blocked a vote. Amendments like those introduced in 2006, which
Hillary had voted for, were reintroduced. This time, however, according to Indian activists who
wanted to force a vote, Hillary’s office was “working closely” with them. 55
The vote was called, and the bill was passed. “The passage by the United States Senate was the
last step in securing this historic accord,” as one of the leaders in the effort to secure the deal put it.
He even called it “the greatest moment in Indian- American political history.” 56
In the end, Hillary pushed for the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition
of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions. As
secretary of state, she would talk about her commitment to creating a “21st century version of the
NPT,” while also insisting that “the NPT will neither be altered nor replaced.” But that is precisely
what her efforts on behalf of the Indian nuclear deal had done.
Weeks after the vote, Hillary was nominated to be secretary of state by the newly elected Barack
Obama. Part of the agreement struck with the Obama transition team was a requirement that the
Clinton Foundation reveal the names of those who had donated money to the Foundation in the past
and going forward.
One of those listed was Amar Singh, the Indian politician who had risen so quickly in Clinton
World. The mention of his name got scant attention in US media, but those in India who tracked
politics took immediate notice. The Clinton Foundation revealed that Singh had given between $1
million and $5 million. But there was a slight problem: based on Indian government financial
disclosures, Singh’s net worth was approximately $5 million. If true, that meant Singh had given
between 20 and 100 percent of his entire net worth to the Clinton Foundation!
When the Times of India asked Singh about the huge donation, he shrugged it off. “I have nothing to
say,” he told them. “I won’t deny anything.” Pressed further, Singh responded cryptically that “the
payment could have been made by someone else on his behalf.” 57
The payment or contribution was revealed smack in the middle of a session of the Indian
parliament. Members of the opposition parties were up in arms. They mocked Singh’s alleged
generosity. “He would be a saint or a mahatma to make such a gesture,” said political observer
Vishwanath Chaturvendi. 58 A core group of senior government ministers, concerned about the
appearance of the payment or contribution, called Singh in to explain. Singh apparently told them he
had not given the money “and no cheque could be traced to him” Wfren asked why he was listed as a
donor, he said “maybe” it was because he had facilitated the payment and therefore it “erroneously”
appeared in the records. Singh never explained where the money came from. Government ministers
were reportedly concerned that the whole episode might result in a criminal inquiry because of the
“insinuation that Amar could have swung the Democrats’ support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal as a
quid pro quo.” 59
Members of Singh’s political party denied that the money came from them “The party has not
donated any such money,” declared Mohan Singh, a member of parliament (and no relation). 60
In New York, the Clintons were stone quiet. Hillary was preparing for the co nfi rmation hearings
and Bill hadn’t said anything. Amar Singh refused to give more interviews about the matter.
One of Singh’s colleagues offered an explanation: the politician put wealthy friends in touch with
the Clintons and was mistakenly given the credit: “Some of them may have mentioned Singh’s name
while making contributions which found its way into the records.” 61 But this seems highly unlikely.
Donations to the foundation would come via wire transfer or check — presumably not in cash. So the
foundation likely would have known where the funds came from. Yet the Clinton Foundation has
never explained their origin. Nor has it ever been determined who precisely donated the money.
While donors connected to the Russian uranium deal such as Ian Telfer ’s Fernwood Foundation never
had their donations revealed, in this case the donation was revealed but didn’t appear to be accurate
as to the true source of the funds.
What is known is that the Indian government rewarded many of those who helped clinch the deal
and got the Clintons to support it. Securing the nuclear deal was a profound victory for elements in
India who saw it as an important step forward in becoming a nuclear power. When the bill passed the
Senate on October 2, it was Chatwal who made the first call to the Indian prime minister with the
For his diligent work in securing passage of the bill, in early 2010 Sant Chatwal was presented by
the Indian government with the Padma Bhushan Award, one of the country’s most prestigious civilian
honors. “He played an important role in getting Hillary Clinton to support the nuclear deal,” said
Sanjaya Baru, who was a media adviser to the Indian prime minister. “He is close to the Clintons.
That is why he got the Padma [Bhushan] award.” 62
Chatwal explained that he had worked hard to secure the deal. In a series of Indian media
interviews, Chatwal noted that Hillary had changed her position on the issue and boasted about the
role he played. At first, back in 2006, Chatwal said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in
favor of the deal then.” 63 But then he began working with her: “But when I put the whole package
together, she also came on board.” He continued, “In politics nothing comes free. You have to write
cheques in the American political system,” Chatwal said. “I know the system I had to work very
hard. So I did as much as I could.” 64 In another interview he bluntly explained, “It took me four years
and millions of dollars, which I paid out of my own pocket. I am very proud of that because I love my
No one appears to have asked them about these candid remarks.
In September 2011 Amar Singh was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribing
three members of parliament during a crucial 2008 vote related to the Indian nuclear deal. In July of
that year the Left Party had pulled out of the ruling coalition over the nuclear deal, which it strongly
opposed. The ruling coalition, which included Singh’s party, needed to prove it had enough votes to
govern. On July 22, hours before the trust vote, large rolls of cash had allegedly been doled out by
Singh, according to Indian authorities. Singh was later arrested and placed in Tihar Jail, one of the
largest prison complexes in the world. While no trial was ever held, he was expelled from his
political party and has retired from politics, at least for now. 66
In April 2013 Vikram Chatwal, the Turban Cowboy, was arrested on heroin and cocaine charges.
Security staff at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport reportedly found half a gram of cocaine and six
grams of heroin in his underwear. 67
On April 17, 2014, Sant Chatwal stood in the Federal District Courthouse in Brooklyn and pleaded
guilty to having “tunneled more than $180,000 in illegal contributions between 2007 and 2011 to
three federal candidates,” including Hillary Clinton. He also pled guilty to witness tampering. 68
Prosecutors alleged that Chatwal “used his employees, business associates, and contractors who
performed work on his hotels ... to solicit campaign contributions on Chatwal’s behalf in support of
various candidates for federal office and PACs, collect these contributions, and pay reimbursements
for these contributions, in violation of the Election Act.” 69
During the course of the federal investigation, FBI agents recorded Chatwal discussing the flow of
money to politicians. He said without the cash, “nobody will even talk to you.” He added, “that’s the
only way to buy them.” 70
Chatwal also pleaded guilty to interfering with a grand jury investigation by telling a witness that
“he and his family should not talk to FBI or IRS agents,” or if they did to lie about it. “Never, never”
admit to reimbursements, he told them Later, he allegedly told the person, “cash has no proof.” 71
While those who transferred cash in an effort to secure the nuclear deal have all faced legal
jeopardy for one reason or another, the recipients of those transfers have moved on. The Clintons
have never explained who donated the millions the foundation attributed to Amar Singh. And they
have never discussed the role Sant Chatwal and his flow of money might have played in getting
Hillary to change her views on the nuclear deal. Indeed, although Chatwal was a longtime member of
the Clinton Foundation board of trustees, since his admission of guilt the foundation has erased any
mention of him from the Clinton Foundation website. 72
The Clinton Blur (I)
Bill and Hillary’s Global Nexus of Philanthropy, Power, and Profit
On a beautiful evening in October 2011 the Clinton Foundation held an elaborate gala at the
Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles called “A Decade of Difference.” The night’s entertainment
featured “socially responsible artists in music, film, and television” brought together to “celebrate the
work and impact of President Clinton.” A company called Control Room, which modestly bills itself
as “the world’s leading producer of massive global events,” put the events together. 1
Lady Gaga sang a song. Looking over at Bill, she said “I just love you and your hot wife.” She
praised the Clintons and promised the crowd, “Tonight, I thought we’d get caught up in a little Bill
romance.” She then proceeded to belt out her hit “Bad Romance,” but made it Clinton specific. 2
The Clinton Foundation is not your traditional charity. A traditional charity doesn’t have a globe-
trotting ex-president, an ex-secretary of state, and their daughter running the show. But for all the
benefits that derive from such star power, the real problem is delineating where the Clinton political
machine and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.
The stated purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to “strengthen the capacity of people throughout the
world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” It was founded in 2001 and boasts a staff of
350. Out of the foundation springs a hydra of projects including the Clinton Health Access Initiative,
Clinton Climate Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), and Clinton
But while the window-display causes of the Clinton Foundation, such as alleviating AIDS
suffering, preventing obesity, and promoting economic growth in the developing world, are
commendable, and while the foundation has done some legitimately good work, the moral authority of
these works seems to provide a screen and pretext for a storehouse of private profit and promotion.
Some might argue that since the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, the flow of funds — even
from questionable foreign sources seeking favors — is not really such a big deal. After all, the funds
go to help people and the Clintons don’t directly profit from the money that gets raised. But it is a big
deal, at least according to federal law. If the donors are giving money to the Clintons to influence
them, it should still be considered a bribe. American corporations that steer contributions to
politically connected charities overseas in hopes of currying favor are violating the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA). American corporations have been dinged for giving money to legitimate
charities linked to politicians. In 2002, for example, the pharmaceutical company Schering Plough
settled with the SEC over charges that it had violated the FCPA by donating $76,000 to a legitimate
charity in Poland called the Chudow Castle Foundation. It’s a well-respected charity, but that was
besides the point. The SEC said the donation was made to influence a Polish government health
official who sat on the charity’s board. The company settled the claim with the feds for $500, 000. 3
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton supported aggressive enforcement of the FCPA. When some
business organizations tried to water down the law, she declared she was “unequivocally opposed to
weakening” it. Hillary took a “strong stand when it comes to American companies bribing foreign
So the fact that the Clinton Foundation is a charity should not deter us from investigating and
exploring the flow of foreign money into its coffers. Indeed, a charity deserves special attention
because it is the perfect tool of influence. Foreign governments, corporations, and financiers who
can’t legally contribute to American political campaigns can write large checks to the Clinton
Foundation in addition to paying high fees for speeches.
The Clintons frequently elide the distinction between their philanthropic work, their self-
promotional and public relations efforts, and their moneymaking ventures. As Fortune puts it in an
eyebrow-raising sentence, the Clinton Foundation is “a new turn in philanthropy, in which the lines
between not-for-profits, politics, and business tend to blur .” 5
Bill Clinton has said as much himself. In describing the foundation’s role, he positions it as a
unique go-between for businesses, governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The
result is the creation of what he calls “public-goods markets.” He sees this as the wave of the future:
“This is the kind of thing I believe will be a critical component of all philanthropic activity for the
foreseeable future,” he told one reporter. “I believe that in the years ahead, the organization and
expansion of public-goods markets will become one of the most important areas of philanthropy, and
will be an area where philanthropy sometimes blurs into strict private enterprise .” 6
In short, what the Clintons have attempted to do is create a crossroads for government, business,
and NGOs, with the Clinton Foundation squarely in the middle. The Clinton Foundation calls this
Bill’s “convening power,” his ability to bring together elites from business, politics, and the nonprofit
world . 7
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach, which, if pursued in a scrupulous way, has
the capacity to do a lot of good. The Clintons’ ability to convene various public and private interests
around a common cause or project does create leverage for getting things done in the global arena.
But the blur also creates opportunity for moving a lot of money around with very little accountability.
Being a convening power has another useful benefit: it means that the organization doesn’t actually
need to get its hands dirty. While there are plenty of photos of Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea holding sick
children in Africa, the foundation that bears their name actually does very little hands-on humanitarian
work. “When President Clinton’s foundation was formed, the first thought was to run its own
projects,” says Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter. But then they came up with the convening-
power model. “What’s brilliant is that President Clinton provides the platform and enlightening
speakers, but other people do the actual work of change .” 8
This causes confusion about who is actually doing what. As relief work and humanitarian veteran
Miles Wortman explains, “The Clinton Foundation ‘partners’ with other foundations in the provision
of services. When the Gates Foundation, for example, provides revenue to the Clinton Foundation,
and it in turn partners with the Gates Foundation in the provision of say, antiretroviral drugs, is this
double accounting of activity?”
This approach positions the Clinton Foundation in a way a politician could especially love: with
little direct responsibility, it is able to take credit for good results and avoid blame for bad ones.
Another important function of the Clinton Foundation appears to be employing longtime Clinton
associates. Like any political machine, jobs must be provided to those who served the Clintons when
in power and who may serve them again in the future. This may help to explain why the foundation’s
senior ranks are populated with so many former political aides and associates, as opposed to those
with extensive experience in charitable work.
Ira Magaziner, who served the Clintons when Bill was in the White House — among other things, he
was the author of Hillary’s famously convoluted health care reform proposal — has played a central
role in the foundation. 9 As he put it in 2009, “The biggest part of the Foundation includes four
operating initiatives, accounting for about 90 percent of the Clinton Foundation budget, all of which I
started and run.” 10 These include the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which deals with matters
related to HIV/ AIDS around the world; the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a domestic program
focused on nutrition and health; the Clinton Hunter Initiative, which focuses on agriculture in Africa;
and the Clinton Climate Initiative, which focuses on issues related to climate change. Even with
structural changes in 2011 that diminished Magaziner’s administrative control, he still plays a key
These Clinton Foundation initiatives are part and parcel of the Clinton Foundation apparatus. The
CGSGI, for example, despite being ostensibly based in Canada, has an executive director based in
New York City. An examination of CGSGI’s financial records indicates that the bulk of the money it
collects gets transferred to the Clinton Foundation itself. It largely functions as a pass through. Senior
positions in the foundation have been filled by Clinton insiders like Bruce Lindsey, Bill’s longtime
friend and political adviser; John Podesta, who was Bill’s chief of staff at the White House; Valerie
Alexander, a senior communications adviser for Hillary’s 2008 campaign; Amitabh Desai, former
legislative aide to then senator Clinton; and Laura Graham, a deputy assistant in Bill’s administration
from 1995 to 2001. 11
The chief development officer at the Clinton Foundation is Dennis Cheng, who previously served
as national finance director and New York finance director for Hillary’s run for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2007-2008. When Hillary became secretary of state, Cheng joined her at
Foggy Bottom, where he served as the deputy chief of protocol of the United States. That gave him the
ability to ensure that Clinton financial supporters were well represented in the pecking order when
foreign heads of state made their official visits to Washington. 12
The Clinton Foundation also hands out honorary titles such as “adviser” to businessmen and
investors who are ostensibly involved in the activities of the foundation (and who are contributors).
As we have already seen, investors operating in the developing world regularly use the title of
“adviser to the Clinton Foundation” on their resumes. They travel with Bill when they visit
developing countries in which the Clinton Foundation has activities and where the investors have or
are seeking investments.
The Clinton Foundation board of directors (or board of trustees as it has sometimes been called) is
largely made up of the Clintons and their closest political aides and advisers. The tightness of the
board has raised alarm bells at places like the Better Business Bureau (BBB). In 2013 the BBB
conducted a charity review of the Clinton Foundation and found that it failed to meet minimum
standards of accountability and transparency. It dinged the organization on its management and
financial controls and pointed out that, despite having a staff of 3 19, the board of directors at the time
had only three board members, who did not actually review the performance of the CEO. The BBB
also said that board members did not receive information about financial arrangements with outside
fundraising firms and consultants. 13
Similarly, Charity Navigator, which evaluates and ranks philanthropic groups, will not rank or
grade the Clinton Foundation. The explanation? The foundation’s “atypical business model” makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate. 14
The Clinton Foundation has added corporate executives or business investors to its board of
trustees from time to time, especially if they are major contributors. One can only wonder how tight
the screening process is, given that at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged
or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.
Vmod Gupta, the founder and chairman of the database firm InfoUSA, was a major Clinton
financial supporter who served as a foundation trustee. In 2008 he was charged with fraud by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for using company funds to support his luxurious
lifestyle. He was alleged to have used more than $9.5 million in corporate funds to pay for personal
jet travel, millions for his yacht, personal credit card expenses, and the cost of twenty cars. He settled
with the SEC for $4 million. 15
Company shareholders also filed suit against him for misuse of corporate funds, including paying
Bill a $3 million consulting fee, and using corporate assets to fly the Clintons around. Gupta defended
his relationship with the Clintons, saying that those payments and his relationship with the Clintons
earned huge dividends for Infogroup. The company settled with shareholders to the tune of $13
Sant Chatwal, whom we met in the previous chapter, was another foundation trustee who has been
in legal trouble over the years, including his conviction for illegal campaign financing, obstruction of
justice, and other charges. 17
Victor Dahdaleh, another trustee, was charged by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in Great Britain
with paying more than 35 million pounds in bribes to executives in Bahrain to win contracts of more
than 2 billion pounds. He has worked for the American aluminum company Alcoa as a “super-
agent.” 18 (The billionaire had his bail revoked in the case because he contacted prosecution
witnesses.) 19 Dahdaleh was found not guilty after the SFO offered no evidence against Dahdaleh
because a key witness, Bruce Hall, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt but refused to testify. 20
Alcoa ended up pleading guilty in the US case arising out of the transaction and settled with the US
Justice Department for $384 million. Dahdaleh was not charged in the United States individually. 21
Current Clinton Foundation board member and trustee Rolando Gonzalez Bunster has been named
in a fraud case in the Dominican Republic involving his company InterEnergy. The charges were filed
by the Dominican government’s Anti-Corruption Alliance (ADOCCO). 22 In 2013 Bunster was
charged along with officials of a government agency concerning alleged “ballooned” fees charged to
the government. The company dismisses the charges as “baseless allegations.” 23
The flow of funds into the Clinton Foundation comes from a variety of sources. While the
foundation boasts that it has hundreds of thousands of contributors, it relies heavily on a group of
high-dollar donors to fund its operations. Since it reports contributions in ranges, not exact amounts, it
is difficult to know precisely how dependent it is on those donors. But approximately 75 percent of
its money has come from contributions of $1 million or more. And as we will see, many of these
contributions came from foreign nationals who decided to give large gifts or make large pledges at
times when they had business before the US government.
As we have seen, the Clinton Foundation failed to report multimillion-dollar contributions from
foreign entities like Ian Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation. Another Canadian mining investor whose
contributions were never disclosed by the Clinton Foundation is Stephen Dattels. This mines-to-
metals tycoon has donated millions of shares of stock to the foundation.
On June 8, 2009, Dattels donated two million shares of stock in his company Polo Resources —
worth about $40,000 at the time. Eight weeks later, on July 29, according to WikiLeaks, the US
ambassador in Bangladesh urged the prime minister and energy minister to reauthorize the Phulbari
Mines for the use of “open pit” coal mining. Dattels’s Polo Resources is an investor in the mine. 24
By donating shares in small mining companies, Dattels is creating a powerful incentive for the
Clintons to help his companies succeed. If the stock price rises, the value of the foundation’s shares
will rise. In the case of Dattels, this potentially creates a significant co nfl ict of interest for Hillary
This was not the first contribution Dattels made to the Clinton Foundation. Back in 2007 he had
committed extensive financial support to CGSGI over a five-year period. He committed to do the
same in 2012. The Dattels Family Foundation’s private website mentions the Clinton Foundation as a
recipient of its support. But the name Dattels appears nowhere on Clinton donor disclosures nor does
that of his company, Polo Resources. Again, the Clinton Foundation has failed to report a foreign
contribution. How many more undisclosed foreign donors might there be? It is impossible to know.
But this was a basic and simple requirement that demands further investigation. And we will meet
more undisclosed donors later in this book.
The flow of funds into the Clinton Foundation, which was supposed to be transparent, is far from it.
As we saw in the previous chapter, even when contributions are disclosed, as in the case of an
obscure Indian politician, he was apparently not really the source of those funds. Is this happening on
Perhaps the most important function of the foundation is to bolster Bill and Hillary’s reputations as
global humanitarians by bringing relief and care to people all over the world. This reputation not only
flatters the ex-president’s ego and benefits Hillary’s political career, but it also has real value both in
terms of global influence and financial reward. But how much good has the Clinton Foundation
At the Hollywood Bowl event, the publicity material included some sweeping claims about the
Clinton Foundation’s accomplishments. “Over the past ten years,” it reads, “President Clinton’s
vision and leadership have resulted in nearly 4 million people benefiting from lifesaving HIV/ AIDS
treatments.” 25 This is perhaps the most popular and oft-repeated success of the foundation, and it
stems from Bill’s efforts to negotiate and help create an international system whereby the cost of
treatment drugs for HIV/ AIDS victims would be radically reduced. “We set out to organize a drug
market to shift it from a high-margin, low-volume, uncertain payment process ... we were able to
lower the price to just under $140 a person a year.” 26
The claim is repeated when he is introduced for speeches around the country and when he is
interviewed in the media. But what exactly does “we were able to lower” mean?
The Clinton Foundation did sign some compacts, but prices were already dropping quickly because
generic versions of treatment drugs were coming on the market. 27 According to public health experts,
the foundation piggybacked on the efforts of other organizations. “He may take a little more credit
than is due,” admits Princeton Lyman, who served in the State Department under Hillary and dealt
with issues related to HIV/ AIDS in Africa. 28
Here’s how the Center for Global Development explains how HIV/ AIDS drugs prices were
lowered: “Essentially, policy entrepreneurs like Peter Piot of UNAIDS — along with activists based
within organizations as Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health and later the Clinton
Foundation [emphasis added] — brought together the pharmaceutical manufacturers with developing
world governments by negotiating the lower prices.” 29
Another claim often advanced by Bill himself is that the Clinton Foundation is on the frontlines of
the HIV/ AIDS crisis in the developing world. As Magaziner puts it, “The Clinton Foundation is now
involved in treating over two-thirds of the world’s children who are on treatment for AIDS.” 30
But what exactly does “involved” mean?
You might get the impression, if you look at the impressive photo displays on the Clinton
Foundation website, that they are actually administering drugs to sick people. But the foundation
doesn’t actually get involved in directly treating people. While organizations such as Doctors Without
Borders, the Red Cross, or Samaritan’s Purse establish their own health care infrastructures —
Doctors Without Borders had more than 300,000 HIV patients directly under their care in 2012 — the
Clinton Foundation effectively has none. 31
Instead it serves as a middleman. “They’ve gone around in a very deliberate process of finding
what they call ‘care partners,”’ says JimYong Kim, who cofounded Partners in Health, which works
with the Clinton Foundation. “That’s what Partners in Health is — our specialty has been working in
rural areas.” 32
The world needs its middlemen, of course. But what this really means is that in practice, the
foundation’s work is heavily geared toward managing relief agency funds provided by foreign
governments, such as Ireland, and dealing with health ministry bureaucrats in the developing world.
In the relief world the Clinton Foundation works like a management consulting firm, such as
McKinsey. But unlike McKinsey or another management firm, specific metrics on specific work by
the foundation itself is hard to come by.
Clinton’s motivation for taking on AIDS as a philanthropic cause has raised serious debate. Many
who have been working in the field say he did a lousy job as president regarding the AIDS issue,
largely ignoring it. As Greg Behrman, the author of a definitive book on the global AIDS crisis put it
to the New York Times , “As president, though, the record is clear. Clinton was not a leader on global
AIDS and the consequences have been devastating.” 33 Andrew Jack of the Financial Times, who
traveled with Clinton to see his work on AIDS, asks whether, in light of his poor record as president,
he is seeking some kind of “atonement.” 34
According to Bill, his interest in working on AIDS issues stems primarily from a conversation he
had with Nelson Mandela shortly after leaving the White House. Clinton says Mandela asked him to
work on these issues to help Africa.
Does Clinton’s motivation matter? It does if his ultimate purpose is to make himself look good. If
that is the case, he will focus on appearances rather than actual results. And making the Clintons look
good is clearly central to the foundation’s purpose. Its website is replete with pictures of Bill, and
increasingly of Hillary and Chelsea, on humanitarian missions in remote locales in Africa or Asia.
The press office also churns out media releases announcing foundation news or the activities of the
The Clinton Foundation’s media machine focuses heavily on the family’s activities. One of its
projects involved helping to pay for the refurbishment of a pediatric clinic in the African country of
Lesotho. When Bill showed up in July 2006, he was greeted at the Maseru airport with a red carpet
and a receiving line of government officials. For good measure, “cultural groups performed dances
and songs,” according to US diplomatic cables. The king of Lesotho gave Bill a knighthood.
Following the “celebratory reception,” Bill headed to the pediatric clinic his foundation had
helped equip where he was serenaded by “choirs and children.” 35 Ignored in foundation releases and
related press reports was the fact that months earlier, in December 2005, the Baylor College of
Medicine and Bristol-Myers Squibb had opened a pediatric clinic in the same town. But there was no
parade or celebration. “No one has star power like Clinton,” noted Dr. Mark Kline, president of the
Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative. “But the casual observer might be led to believe that
no one else is doing anything, and that may draw resources away from others.” 36
But beyond good publicity, the foundation serves other purposes as well. As we have already seen,
Clinton’s visits to foreign locales frequently mix business with charitable work. When Bill flies into
a country with an entourage, which may include businessmen with matters before the local
government, he is there ostensibly to do (or simply talk about) his philanthropic work. But these visits
often involve making useful introductions that coincide with major business deals in which Clinton
Foundation donors are involved.
The Clinton Foundation also provides opportunities for foreign leaders and foreign investors to
burnish their (sometimes shaky) reputations and images by association with its praiseworthy
Dictators like Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, Meles Zenawi from Ethiopia (whom we will
meet in chapter 7), and Paul Kagame of Rwanda might have terrible reputations when it comes to
human rights, but they are invited guests at Clinton Foundation events where they are praised for their
leadership. Kagame, for example, was a “Clinton Global Citizen of the Year” in 2009. He was
praised by the foundation as a “brilliant military commander” and given the award for “leadership in
public service.” What you won’t read in his bio is the fact that Kagame arrests his political opponents
and censors journalists. Nor is there mention of the fact that the United Nations accuses Kagame’s
militias of raping and slaying thousands of Hutu. It is widely believed that Kagame is largely
responsible for fueling the civil war going on in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. 37
Whenever Kagame speaks before the Clinton Foundation or meets with Bill, he is quick to
publicize it. He clearly recognizes that partnering with an ex-president grants him added legitimacy. 38
The Clintons point out that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton
Foundation. This is true — the hundreds of millions that pour into the foundation do not benefit the
Clintons directly. But they profit from the foundation in a way that is both indirect and far more
lucrative: by taking enormous speaking fees for talking about their charitable work.
In his early post-presidential years Bill’s speeches were largely about his views of the world or
his experiences in office. But in more recent years many of his speeches involve talking about the
work of the foundation.
In October 2006, for example, Bill was paid $150,000 for a speech to the Mortgage Bankers
Association for “discussing world events and his work on behalf of the William J. Clinton
Foundation.” 39 In September 2006 he was paid $450,000 to speak at the Fortune Forum, which is a
charitable fundraising event in London. These are just a few examples among many instances.
Clinton’s go-to speech, entitled “Our Common Humanity,” is largely about the work of the foundation.
The Clintons’ charitable work puts money in their pockets in other ways, too. In 2007 Bill released
a book called Giving that highlighted the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and those who
work with it. He made $6.3 million from sales. 40 The book was widely criticized. Peter Baker, now
of th eNew York Times, called it an “extended public service announcement masquerading as a
Blurring their charitable, political, and financial interests has served the Clintons well. When
Hillary became secretary of state, the practice continued. Indeed, it reached a whole new level.
The Clinton Blur (IT)
The View from Foggy Bottom
In 2009 Hillary Clinton was in Russia, where she pushed Russian officials to sign a multibillion-
dollar airplane agreement with Boeing. The $3.7 billion purchase was a big deal for the aerospace
company. Two months after Boeing won the contract, the company pledged $900,000 to the Clinton
Foundation. The Washington Post called it “an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship
between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as
a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested
resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.” 1
When Hillary became secretary of state she announced a new commitment to what she called
“commercial diplomacy” or “economic statecraft.” The idea was simple: she would use her
diplomatic leverage to help American companies be more competitive overseas. If they needed help
in a foreign country, Hillary would be there as a supportive partner.
This was no idle commitment. As Businessweek put it in a retrospective look at her tenure,
“There’s no doubt Clinton has had success using her personal clout to help a handful of companies
close a handful of deals.” 2
Hillary’s commitment to commercial diplomacy was laudable to the extent that she was committed
to helping American firms be competitive in the global marketplace. But in practice it would prove
difficult to distinguish the personal and political aspects of this kind of activity.
In State Department parlance Hillary’s commercial diplomacy was executed as part of what it
called “public private partnerships.” And the public-private partnerships came in many forms. The
goals of these partnerships were often praiseworthy. But they often benefited friends of the Clintons.
Power Africa, for example, like all such partnerships, has a noble goal: to help African countries
develop large energy projects. 3 But as Forbes magazine points out, initiatives like Power Africa tend
to favor politically connected firms. Winners include firms like Symbion Power, which counts former
ambassador Joe Wilson as a member of its board. (Wilson, who we will meet again in chapter 8, is a
Clinton friend and political ally.) 4 Another firm involved with Power Africa is Hecate Energy. Its
founder David Wilhelm has no background in the field. For most of his professional life he served as
a lobbyist and partner in Wilhelm and Conlon Public Strategies. Before that, he was the manager for
Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. 5
The pursuit of commercial diplomacy required a new infrastructure within the State Department.
Shortly after her confirmation as secretary of state, Hillary created the Office of Global Partnerships.
The director of this office would serve as the “chief liaison between corporate America, the State
Department, and governments around the world.”
To run this sensitive office, she turned not to a diplomat, a former corporate executive, or even
someone withNGO experience overseas but to longtime political operative Kris Balderston. 6
Balderston had served for eight years on Hillary’s Senate staff and also did a stint in Bill Clinton’s
White House. His most famous role in Clinton World involved keeping the infamous List, which rated
people as friends or enemies on a point system 7 In a December 8, 2008, memo Balderston had
suggested the idea for a State Department “corporate office” to create a series of public-private
partnerships matching private capital with public governmental power. Hillary loved the idea and
adopted it immediately, putting Balderston in charge, despite his having no background in the area of
international business. 8
Other senior positions were given to political aides who had more experience in the world of
Washington than in global affairs. Indeed, during her tenure both the State Department and the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), which fell under Hillary’s control, saw a
substantial rise in staff. Staffing at the State Department increased 17 percent from 2008 to 2012, and
USAID staffing was up 30 percent. 9
One can hardly blame Bill and Hillary for seeking to place friends and supporters in jobs under
their control. Like other prominent political figures, the Clintons need to keep a large constellation of
aides, advisers, and friends gainfully employed. Some of this employment, as indicated above, is
handled by way of the Clinton Foundation. But the State Department was a convenient place for
rewarding supporters as well. To enhance her scope of patronage, Hillary made extensive use of
what is called the special government employee (SGE) rule. This special category of staff allowed
the Clintons to have their aides simultaneously involved with the Clinton Foundation, State
Department, and various outside commercial interests.
The SGE rule was originally designed to ensure that experts like scientists and engineers could be
tapped for their expertise by the federal government without giving up their regular jobs at a research
lab or university. The assignment was also supposed to be temporary — totaling no more than 130
days out of 365.
But Hillary used the SGE status not for scientists or academics but for political aides, some of
whom simultaneously held jobs at Clinton-affiliated firms. Take Huma Abedin, who served as
Hillary’s deputy chief of staff at State. As an SGE, Abedin was able to remain on the payroll of the
Clinton Foundation, as well as on that of a corporate consulting firm called Teneo, which was started
in 2009 by Bill’s longtime aide Doug Band.
Teneo, where Bill was a paid adviser, represented firms who had often either paid for Bill’s
speeches or donated to the Clinton Foundation. Also involved in Teneo was Declan Kelly. An SGE at
State for a while, Kelly joined Teneo in 2011. Teneo’s clients included Fortune 500 companies,
governments, and high-net-worth individuals. The companies it represented included Coca-Cola,
UBS, and Standard Chartered.
The arrangement worked seamlessly until March 2012, when Bill ceased to be a Teneo adviser.
One of Teneo’s clients was MF Global, the commodities brokerage run by Clinton friend John
Corzine. 10 MF Global collapsed after a series of highly leveraged trades. Some customers accused
the firm of raiding their private accounts to shore up its finances after risky bets went sour. When
news broke that MF Global was a client, Bill apparently felt it best to sever his ties.
SGE Abedin played a central role in everything Hillary did. She assured a Senate committee that
there was no cross-pollination between her job at the State Department and her other work at Clinton-
connected entities. She explained that she provided “strategic advice and consulting services” to
Teneo’s management team but did not provide “insights about the department, my work with the
secretary or any government information to which I may have had access.” But public concerns were
not so easily allayed. As the New York Times put it, “the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s
work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her
role as a Clinton family insider.” 11
SGE Caitlin Klevorick, who worked as a consultant to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation,
joined the State Department in 2009 as a special assistant to Cheryl Mills. In that capacity she
“provided expert knowledge and advice to the counselor and the chief of staff and other department
officials on a variety of important foreign policy issues,” according to the State Department. SGE
status allowed her to keep her firm CBK Strategies, where she simultaneously worked for corporate
Cheryl Mills herself, Hillary’s longtime chief of staff, was also granted SGE status so she could
continue to direct Haiti relief efforts at the State Department while returning to work for the Clinton
Foundation after Hillary resigned.
SGE Elizabeth Bagley, who married into the RJR Reynolds tobacco fortune, was a longtime
Hillary fundraiser who joined the State Department as a “special advisor to the Secretary” and then
“special advisor for Secretary initiatives.” Bagley and her husband had kicked in more than $1
million to the Clinton Foundation. At State, she was paid a $129,000 salary (the highest possible) and
allowed to continue her other commercial activities.
Ann Gavaghan, a former member of Hillary’s Senate staff, was also granted SGE special status.
Gavaghan served as the chief of staff in the State Department’s Office of the US Global AIDS
One value of SGE status is that ethics rules are looser than those that apply to regular public
employees. SGEs can “work on a matter if you have a personal relationship with one of the
parties.” 12 They are also able to work for clients with matters before the office they work in. And
they can raise money for political candidates (or entities like the Clinton Foundation) “if you do so
only during non-duty hours and if you do not use a government resource.” 13
As the Boston Globe put it, this kind of arrangement is “fraught with potential conflicts and
Propublica, a nonprofit news organization, investigated the use of SGE status in the federal
government and asked numerous government agencies to send them lists of SGEs at their agencies.
According to Propublica ' s Justine Elliott and Liz Day, many of them did. But the State Department
balked. So Propublica filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The State Department
responded after several months that assembling the list would require “extensive research,” finally
handing it over four months after that. State Department officials would not explain why they were so
reluctant to share the information.
The other tool Hillary used to create payroll opportunities for Clinton friends and allies was the S-
class designation. S-class positions were under the direct purview and financial control of the
secretary of state and no one else. This allowed Hillary to exclude State Department bureaucrats,
Foreign Service officers, or civil servants from involvement or control over certain projects or
activities, including everything from economic diplomacy to health care issues. As reporters Jonathan
Allen and Amie Parnes put it in a sympathetic portrait of her tenure, Hillary appointed “a cluster of
special ambassadors, envoys and representatives and senior advisers who exercised tremendous
power to circumvent the department bureaucracy.” 15
Hillary further centralized control over the awarding of government grants, contracts, and
consulting agreements by dramatically reducing the independence of USAID, which was part of the
State Department apparatus. Dubbed the “Foggy Bottom Smackdown” by some in Washington,
Hillary effectively took away power from USAID administrators and in her Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review made clear that the agency’s budget would remain under the State
Department. As the New Republic reported, not only were USAID programs further put under her
control, but she populated the agency with loyalists who had little or no relevant experience. 16
The practice of appointing special status employees throughout the State Department bureaucracy
effectively blurred the lines between American diplomatic initiatives and the interests of the Clintons
and their friends.
Consider the case of Laureate Education — a typical example of the Clinton Blur in action.
Laureate Education began as part of Sylvan Learning Systems but branched out to become one of
the largest for-profit university systems in the world. Founded in Baltimore in 1999, it now comprises
a sprawling network of campuses, including six in Saudi Arabia, a dozen in Brazil, three in China,
and even one in Cyprus. 17 In Brazil alone, there are 130,000 students paying tuition to attend ten
Laureate International schools on forty different campuses. 18
Laureate recruits students through telemarketing. The call centers are often on the campus
themselves and those making the calls are university students. 19 The university system spends more
than $200 million a year on advertising, including television commercials, online campaigns, and
billboards that dot the developing world.
In early 2010 Bill signed on as “honorary chancellor” of Laureate. The title might have been
“honorary,” but Bill got paid for his services. How much? It’s hard to know. Government disclosure
forms did not require him to specify, only that it was “more than $1,000.” But part of his job included
speaking at half a dozen or so Laureate schools every year, which, based on his typical fee scale,
meant perhaps $ 1 million per year.
Bill sparked tremendous excitement when he showed up in 2012 to address throngs of students and
faculty at Laureate schools in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Mexico City. He also visited campuses in
Germany, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and the United States. 20 Bill’s face and name have
been plastered on Laureate marketing materials and pictures of him have lined the walkways at
campuses like Laureate’s Bilgi University in Istanbul, Turkey. 21
The relationship between Laureate chairman Douglas Becker and the Clintons formed in the years
before Hillary became secretary of state, when Becker started showing up at Clinton Global Initiative
(CGI) events. In 2008 Laureate became a partner with CGI. By 2009 Becker was paying Bill to give
speeches at Laureate campuses in Spain, Brazil, and Peru. 22
Other Clinton friends were soon brought in. Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of housing
and urban development during Clinton’s presidency, became chairman of Laureate’s National
Hispanic University advisory board. Cisneros delivered commencement addresses in San Jose,
California, where he praised Laureate as a “pioneer in higher education for Hispanics.” 23
But Laureate’s business practices have faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations in
some countries. In Mexico, Chile, and Turkey, where Laureate operates, for-profit universities are
actually illegal. Laureate has put money into a struggling nonprofit school, getting positions on the
board, then getting the school to hire Laureate for a variety of “services,” including computer-
advisory services and English courses. Laureate has also received funds for the use of its trademark.
According to Chile’s economic crimes unit, Laureate’s Chilean schools transferred more than $80
million out of the country between 2011 and 2013. A national commission found that there were
irregularities regarding Laureate’s activities. 24 In its financial filings with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), Laureate admitted that the service agreements are a way to “efficiently
transfer funds out of the universities in these countries.” 25
Becker, in addition to running Laureate, is also the chairman of the International Youth Foundation
(IYF). This nonprofit sister organization (whose offices are less than a mile from Laureate’s in
Baltimore) runs numerous programs through Laureate, including something called YouthActionNet,
which has fellows on Laureate’s campuses in Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Peru, Chile, and Turkey. 26
Becker’s company announced its YouthActionNet commitment at the CGI annual meeting in 2010.
Bill heartily approved: “I am pleased that Laureate International Universities and the International
Youth Foundation have partnered on this commitment to empower young social entrepreneurs to take
on pressing challenges in their own communities and around the world.” 27
Shortly after Bill became honorary chancellor in April 2010, Hillary made Laureate part of her
State Department Global Partnership. In October 2010 the State Department held a gala reception on
the twentieth anniversary of IYF’s founding. The featured speaker was Maria Otero, the
undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, who praised the group for “doing such
important work.” 28
IYF had already received financial support from USAID before Hillary became secretary of state,
going back to 2001. 29 But the amount of its grants has exploded since Bill became chancellor of
Laureate. According to IYF tax filings, in 2010 government grants accounted for $23 million of its
revenue, compared to $5.4 million from other sources. It received $21 million in 2011 and $23
million in 20 12. 30 In June 2011 IYF joined with the State Department and USAID in holding a Youth
Partnerships Employability Conference in Washington. 31
During Hillary’s tenure at State, IYF received USAID grants to work in Mexico, Mozambique,
Senegal, Tanzania, the Kyrgyz Republic, Uganda, Jordan, the Caribbean, the West Bank and Gaza,
and Algeria, and to address “good governance” issues worldwide. In 2012 it also received its first
grant directly from the State Department: $1.9 million for work on a Middle East Partnership
In January 2013, just before Hillary left her post as secretary of state, the International Finance
Corporation (IFC) made a $150 million equity investment in Laureate, the first time the development
organization had ever done so. IFC is part of the World Bank. The head of the World Bank at the time
was Jim Kim, a Clinton friend and cofounder of Partners in Health, a partner of the Clinton
Isn’t it troubling that while Bill Clinton was being paid by a private corporation, that corporation
was also benefiting from State Department actions? Isn’t it troubling that an affiliate of that
corporation is also receiving tens of millions in taxpayer money? Isn’t it troubling that this seeming
conflict of interest was not disclosed?
Troubling State Department conflict of interest questions hardly end here. But now let us turn the
camera to the man behind the podium (and Foggy Bottom).
What Was Bill Being Paid For?
Most ex-presidents see the demand for their speechmaking decline as they move farther away from
their time in office. The opposite applies to Bill. Indeed, during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state,
Bill’s speechmaking activity increased and became much more profitable, particularly overseas. In a
number of cases, these speeches were paid for by people with an interest in obtaining favors from
Does Bill’s outsized personality and global popularity really explain his record financial success
on the speaking circuit? We have become used to former occupants of the Oval Office making money
in their post-presidential years. Ronald Reagan famously gave two speeches for $2 million in Tokyo
following his retirement from office. George H. W. Bush gave lectures and joined corporate boards
for firms like the investment giant the Carlyle Group. But no one comes close to Bill Clinton.
The really troubling thing about Bill’s speeches is the apparent correlation between his fees and
Hillary’s decisions during her tenure as secretary of state. The timing of the payments, the much
higher than average size of some of them, and the subsequent actions taken by Hillary raise serious
questions about just what those who underwrote these exorbitant fees were actually paying for.
As noted earlier, Hillary infamously claimed she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the
White House. So while Hillary went to the US Senate, Bill hit the lecture circuit. In 2001 he gave
thirty- nine speeches overseas and twenty in the United States. In the following seven years, the
Clintons pulled in a stunning $109 million. 1
As Clinton’s presidency receded into the past, his income from speeches, especially big paydays
from overseas speeches, declined. But when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, those high-
paying overseas speeches ramped up dramatically. Bill’s three best years securing speaking fees over
$250,000 occurred while Hillary was at State. In fact, of the thirteen Clinton speeches that fetched
$500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.
TD Bank, a Canadian financial institution, has paid Bill more than any other financial institution for
lectures. More than Goldman Sachs, UBS, JPMorgan, or anyone on Wall Street. TD Bank paid Bill
$1.8 million for ten speeches over a roughly two-and-half-year period from late 2008 to mid-2011.
Moreover, these payments came at a crucial time, as Hillary wrestled with a controversial decision
of enormous financial interest to the bank.
Beginning in 2008 TransCanada Corporation sought US government approval for the $8 billion,
1 ,660-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline, which was designed to transport 900,000 barrels a day from
Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries in Port Arthur, Texas. 2 Because the project crossed an
international border, authority for granting a presidential permit of approval rested with the US
secretary of state. 3
TD Bank had never paid Bill for a speech until the pipeline project began snaking its way through
Washington. It was late 2008 and Keystone XL permits had just been submitted to Washington.
Hillary had lost the Democratic nod for the White House, but she was still a powerful US senator.
Capitol Hill Republicans were generally supportive of energy projects like Keystone XL. If there
was going to be opposition, it would likely come from liberal Democrats.
One of the Keystone XL pipeline’s biggest shareholders was none other than TD Bank, which held
$1.6 billion in shares. TD Bank was also on the hook for $993 million it had loaned to TransCanada. 4
TD Bank, in a research note, called the pipeline a “national priority” that was essential for the long-
term health of the Canadian oil industry. 5
There had been talk since June 2008 that Barack Obama, having sewn up the Democratic
nomination, would pick Hillary as his secretary of state. On November 21, 2008, the New York Times
reported that Hillary would indeed be his nominee to head up the State Department. 6 Four days later,
on November 25 and 26, Bill was in Canada delivering his first of three speeches, for which TD
Bank paid him $525, 000. 7 But the Clintons were only getting started. Hillary was co nfi rmed as
secretary of state on February 21, 2009. In May Bill returned to Canada and gave three more
speeches for another $525,000, making appearances in Halifax, St. John, and Toronto. Four months
later, on September 13, TD Bank sponsored yet another appearance, this one for $175,000 in
Toronto. On November 3, 2009, TD Bank paid him another $175,000 for a speech in Abu Dhabi. 8 On
May 20, 2010, Bill spoke for another $175,000 in a speech underwritten by TD Bank, this time in
Many of these TD-sponsored events were “private affairs,” not open to the public or the press. 10
At several of the speeches, Clinton was introduced or interviewed by TD Bank vice chairman
Frank McKenna. A former Canadian politician and former ambassador to the United States, McKe nna
is described in the Canadian press as “a good friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.” 11 His interest
in the Keystone XL pipeline went beyond his role as an executive with TD Bank. McKenna also sits
on the corporate board of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), a heavy-oil producer that
planned to use the pipeline to move its oil to the United States. 12
When the pipeline project ran into rough opposition in Washington, McKenna became a vocal
advocate. WLen President Obama decided to delay review of the project until after the 2012
elections, McKenna questioned whether Canadians were being “screwed” by the decision. 13
Given Hillary’s role in green-lighting the project, she naturally became the focus of intense
lobbying efforts. In addition to suddenly throwing almost $2 million at Bill, Canadian corporations
with an interest in the project hired several senior aides from Hillary’s presidential campaign to
assist them in their efforts.
The lead lobbyist for TransCanada was Paul Elliott, who had served as the deputy national
campaign director on Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. E-mail correspondence released through
the FOIA reveals that US State Department officials advised TransCanada on how to build support
for the Keystone Pipeline — even as the department was conducting its review on whether or not to
approve it. 14 One of those communicating with Elliott was Nora Toiv, a special assistant to Hillary
The chummy nature of the correspondence between Elliott and senior officials in the State
Department enraged environmental groups. “I think we’ve gone way beyond bias,” said Damon
Moglen, the director of the climate and energy program for Friends of the Earth. “We now see that the
State Department has been complicit in this entire affair.” 15
TransCanada certainly seems to have gotten its money’s worth from Elliott. Meanwhile the
provincial government of Alberta, where the oil sands were located, hired another Clinton aide.
Hilary Lefebre, who served as the director of broadcast media strategy for Hillary’s presidential
campaign, received a $54,000 consulting fee to “blunt” criticism of the project from environmental
Environmental activists continued to accuse the State Department of failing to offer a truly
independent review of the Keystone XL project. To offer an environmental assessment, State hired a
company called Environmental Resources Management (ERM). But there was a problem:
environmental activists pointed out that ERM had financial ties with TransCanada. State Department
officials attempted to cover that fact up, redacting the biographies of the study’s authors to hide their
previous work for TransCanada. 17
Meanwhile, in May 2011 Bill was paid $280,000 for appearances in Fredericton and Antigonish. 18
The Clinton speech submissions to State Department ethics officials (per the Obama administration
memorandum of understanding described in chapter 1) didn’t indicate that TD Bank was a major
investor in Keystone XL. Three months later, in August, the State Department released a final
environmental impact statement that was seen as largely supportive of the pipeline. 19
Throughout the process, Hillary remained relatively quiet. The political winds for Democrats were
difficult. While organized labor favored the deal, environmentalists, Hollywood, and numerous high-
dollar contributors opposed it. 20
By late 2011 events appeared to be reaching a crescendo. As hearings commenced in Washington,
Hillary sent word that there should be no Canadians present. “Canadian officials saw the request as a
suggestion that Ms. Clinton supported the project, and didn’t want a Canadian presence to further
disturb the peace.” 21 And there was muted evidence that Hillary was quietly pushing the deal through.
At an appearance at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, she had been asked about energy
policy in general and the Keystone XL pipeline in particular. While explaining that she had not yet
decided whether to approve the project, Hillary declared, “we are inclined to do so, and we are for
several reasons.” She touted the project on the grounds of “energy security.” “We’re either going to
be dependent on dirty oil from the [Persian] Gulf or dirty oil from Canada,” she said, leaving the
audience with the impression that she favored the latter. 22
\bcal opposition continued to mount, as President Obama came under increasing pressure from
environmentalists. During an October 26 speech, Obama was heckled about the pipeline. “I know
your deep concern about [Keystone XL],” he said. “We will address it.” In a series of interviews
with local media outlets through the Midwest, where the pipeline was supposed to run, he was
pressed on the issue. 23 After officials in Nebraska demanded that the pipeline be rerouted to avoid
sensitive environmental areas, President Obama decided to delay approval of the project. 24
In late February 2012 Bill finally issued his statement of support for the project at (of all places) a
Department of Energy conference for clean technology start-ups. With a group of bureaucrats and
green-energy investors looking on, Bill told the crowd in Maryland that America should “embrace”
the pipeline. 25 Later the same afternoon, Hillary was at the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, discussing the pipeline. Naturally, she was asked about her husband’s remarks.
“He’s a very smart man,” she responded, causing a smattering of chuckles in the crowd. For
Canadians, this was another hopeful sign. As the Canadian press put it, “Bill Clinton’s comments will
almost certainly cause a stir given his wife has already been accused of a pro-pipeline bias by the sea
of American environmentalists who oppose Keystone XL.” 26
Obama’s edict that the pipeline issue not be settled until after the 2012 elections effectively sealed
its fate, at least as it related to Hillary’s ability to get it approved. By January 2013 she was gone
from Foggy Bottom.
Since she left office, Hillary has used the fact that because she was involved in the process, she
can’t talk about her views on the Keystone Pipeline. As she told one crowd, “I’ve said before in
Canada as I’ve traveled around your country avoiding answering questions about the Keystone
pipeline because I really can’t, having been part of the process.” So her involvement prevents her
from talking about Keystone, but it didn’t prevent her husband from making millions from its largest
shareholder. 29 As Charles Calomiris, a professor of financial institutions at the Columbia University
Graduate School of Business, explains, the speeches were not really about speeches. What they really
wanted was to buy Hillary’s goodwill by paying Bill. “I’m not sure it would matter if those speeches
had taken place in Clinton’s bathtub,” he said. “What matters is that they paid him.” 30
Wwi e much of the media attention to Clinton’s speaking has focused on his fees from Wall Street
and pharmaceutical companies, it has been the outsized payments from overseas that have really
brought in the money. In 2011 Bill Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for giving fifty- four
speeches. 31 But of those speeches paying $250,000 or more, nearly 40 percent, or $5.1 million of
those fees, came from just eleven speeches given outside the United States. Overall, these mega-
paying speeches for over $250,000 generated nearly $40 million in income for the Clintons from
2001 to 2013.
In short, Bill Clinton’s best years — with much higher than average fees being consistently paid by
foreign entities — occurred while his wife was at the pinnacle of her power as secretary of state, a
perch with enormous influence over issues that directly affected foreign governments.
A few examples make the point.
Beginning in 2009, the Swedish telecom giant Ericsson came under US pressure for selling telecom
equipment to oppressive governments, some of which used those technologies to monitor and control
their own people. In late 2010 the SEC sent a letter to Ericsson about sales to countries that were
considered state sponsors of terrorism by Hillary’s State Department. 32 The regimes included Sudan
and Syria, where Ericsson sold and maintained telephone- switching equipment, and Iran, where it
was selling “commercial grade systems to public network operators for mobile communications.” 33
Hillary was a well-known hawk on Iran and used economic tools against regimes that were
considered sponsors of terrorism. According to US diplomatic cables, State Department officials
were “regularly and increasingly” raising these transactions involving Ericsson with the Swedish
foreign minister. 34
In April 2011 Ericsson was named in a State Department report for supplying telecom equipment
for the oppressive regime in Belarus. 35 Separately, on Capitol Hill pressure was mounting and a bill
would later be introduced in December 2011 in the House of Representatives to “stop the sale of
surveillance technologies to repressive regimes.” 36 In June 2011 the State Department started
drawing up a list of which goods and services might be covered under expanded sanctions on Iran
and other state sponsors of terrorism. 37
Meanwhile, Ericsson decided to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton and paid him more than he had
ever been paid for a single speech: $750,000. According to Clinton financial disclosures, in the
previous ten years Ericsson had never sponsored a Clinton speech. But now it apparently thought
would be a good time to do so.
On November 12,2011, Bill appeared at a telecom conference in Hong Kong and talked in general
terms about the role that telecom plays in our lives. One week later, on November 19, the State
Department unveiled its new sanctions list for Iran. Telecom was not on the list. 38
On December 8, Hillary discussed the issue of telecom companies and their sales to repressive
regimes for the first time since Bill’s speech. She argued that companies like Ericsson needed to
make “good decisions” about whom they do business with but proposed no further action. 39
In April 2012, President Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions on telecom sales to
Iran and Syria. But those sanctions did not cover Ericsson’s work in Iran. The Swedish company said
that it was planning to scale down its work in the country because of public pressure, but internal
documents obtained by Reuters found that the company planned to honor existing contracts in Iran. 40
In 2011 much of the Arab world was in upheaval, dealing with the aftermath of the Arab Spring,
which had sparked widespread protests across the region. In Egypt and Tunisia, large crowds took to
the streets and demanded political change. Many of these protests turned violent. 41 Even countries
considered relatively stable, including Bahrain and Yemen, were dealing with violent upheavals 42
The events left small but wealthy countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) feeling very
vulnerable. The UAE was being pressured by the United States to tighten its grip on economic ties
with Iran. 43 In May two oil and shipping companies faced sanctions for their trade with Iran. On June
20, 2011, the Obama administration designated six UAE-based shipping firms for sanctions over their
business dealings with Iran 44 Three days later, the United States charged several other parties in the
UAE with trading parts for fighter jets and attack helicopters to Iran. 45
The UAE was in a precarious situation because it feared the Iranian regime. But it feared
something perhaps even more: being abandoned by the United States. In a secret State Department
cable, the crown prince said his country was “being left out of our [US] Iran sanctions consultations.”
He explained to a visiting congressional delegation that the royal family was “left wondering what
will happen to them in any deal the US and Iran reach through back-channel conversations.” 46
Amid this uncertainty, the royal family decided to pay Bill Clinton $500,000 to come and speak in
Abu Dhabi. 47 Bill arrived in Abu Dhabi and stayed at the Emirates Palace hotel. 48
His speech was on collecting environmental data. “The lack of environmental data hurts,” he said.
“On top of all environmental issues, the financial crisis is making the world’s stability even worse.
The only way out, though, is a green economy.” 49
What is striking about the speech is not what Clinton said but the timing of the payment. Even as
Bill was being introduced to the audience by the crown prince of the UAE, the prince’s brother (the
foreign minister) was en route to Washington for meetings with none other than Hillary. Sheikh
Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan arrived in Washington on December 12 and met Hillary the day after
Bill collected his half million. Based on the Clintons’ financial disclosures, it does not appear that
the UAE royal family had ever paid for a Clinton speech before. 50
This was not the first time Bill collected large checks for speeches paid by foreign governments,
such as Thailand and Turkey. 51 It certainly wouldn’t be the last.
The year 2010 was a tense time for US-Chinese relations. The problems were piling up: the Chinese
government reduced its military ties with the Pentagon following US arms sales to Taiwan; Google
disclosed that it had been a victim of a Chinese cyber assault; Barack Obama hosted the Dalai Lama
in Washington amidst public outcries in Beijing; relations grew stiff when officials disagreed on
trade issues and China’s alleged manipulation of its currency Meanwhile, China was flexing its
military muscle, sending a submarine to the bottom of the South China Sea where it planted a Chinese
flag on the ocean floor to signify China’s claim to the mineral-rich area.
At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton, who was the architect of the Obama
administration’s strategic “pivot” to Asia.
At this critical time for US-Chinese relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were
underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters. That might not be apparent if you look at
the Clintons’ public financial disclosures. For example, on October 21, 2011, Bill gave a speech
before something called the Silicon Valley Information Business Alliance in Santa Clara, California.
But who underwrote the speech? According to correspondence between Bill’s office and the State
Department, the cosponsors were a coalition of Chinese government entities and organizations. Bill
received $200,000 for the speech (well above his average for speaking in the United States) and the
sponsors were the China Electronic Commerce Association (an entity launched and chaired by an
official from the Chinese Ministry of Information Industry); 52 the Suzhou People’s government (a
municipality around Shanghai); the China Association of Science and Technology Industry Parks (this
third sponsor sounds pretty innocuous, but it is a government- run entity in China); and the California
State Friendship Committee, a small California-based organization designed to foster US-Chinese
There were no clear guidelines about what was and what wasn’t permissible. After the speech in
California, Bill Clinton’s office contacted the State Department and sought approval for a speech
sponsored by the Shanghai Airport Authority (SAA). Note the flexibility and lack of understanding
that it had already approved the speech in California when the State Department wrote back, “[Your
correspondence] states that the Shanghai Airport Authority, a state-owned enterprise, would be a
‘title sponsor only.’ Does this mean that SAA is not contributing any funds to pay for President
Clinton’s fees? I don’t believe we’ve previously cleared acceptance of fees from PRC-linked
entities, but could consider this variation.”
The State Department Ethics Office was willing to “consider” a “variation” on guidelines, they
wrote to Clinton’s office. Ultimately Clinton declined the speech. His office said there was a
Bill also took a $550,000 payment for an appearance in Shanghai at something called the Huatuo
CEO forum, underwritten by Chinese billionaire Yan Jiehe, a man described as “China’s baddest
billionaire builder.” Yan has become wealthy in part through large government construction contracts.
His company is perhaps most famous in China for lopping off and flattening seven hundred
mountaintops for a construction project. (Yan says, in defense, the number wasn’t quite that high.) 54
Yan, who calls Clinton a “close friend,” is an outspoken Chinese nationalist, explaining that foreign
countries must “not look down on China. ... I understand that my country, my nation, China is the
greatest in history.” 55
Prior to Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state, Bill had given only two speeches on the
Chinese mainland, for a total of $450,000.
After Hillary’s appointment, the Clintons promised both the incoming Obama White House and the
US Senate that his speeches and business ties would be vetted by the State Department Ethics Office,
as described in chapter 1 .
This approach was doomed to fail, because the disclosures to be made were not required to
indicate anything other than the name of the donor, certainly not investments or what business they
might have with the State Department. An examination of the communication between Bill’s office
and State Department ethics officers, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOLA), indicates that Bill Clinton’s office never provided anything but a cursory
description of who was paying for each speech. TD Bank’s ties to the Keystone Pipeline, for
example, were never disclosed. Ericsson, in the correspondence concerning that speech, is simply
described as a “world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment.” No mention is made of
its tangles with the State Department at the time. And the department green-lighted 215 speechmaking
arrangements as not posing conflicts of interest. 56
For the ethics officers replying to the Clinton requests, the emphasis was on a speedy response.
And then there was the intimidation factor: they were vetting speeches being done by the spouse of
their ultimate boss. And the spouse happened to be a former president. For good measure, all
correspondence pertaining to Bill’s speeches between his office and the ethics office was copied to
Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff and Bill’s longtime friend. 57 And who ran the ethics office at the
time? That would be the State Department legal adviser, Harold Koh, who had previously been
appointed by President Clinton as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and
Speaking of ethics problems, some of Bill’s largest paydays for speaking fees have come from
scandal-plagued Nigeria. As we will learn in the next chapter, the Clinton financial ties to the
continent of Africa run deep, and often include those with troubling reputations and rich histories of
The Clintons Do Africa
It was an unusually hot July in 2009 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Kinshasa, the
sprawling capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC (previously named Zaire)
had for decades been a house of horrors. Ruled by corrupt dictators, populated by child soldiers,
plagued by tribal fighting, and suffering from invasions by neighboring countries, few places on earth
are more hellish than the DRC.
As a senator, Hillary had taken the lead in rooting out DRC corruption and violence. In 2006 she
was one of the first to sign on as a cosponsor of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief,
Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006 — one of only twelve cosponsors in the Senate. The
legislation — which was authored by then senator Barack Obama — included provisions on human
rights, corruption, and sexual violence. It also addressed the issue of conflict minerals, the illicit
trade in valuable minerals that fuel much of the country’s violence. The bill had teeth, giving the US
secretary of state real power and authority to combat the country’s problems. The bill was passed by
the Senate and House, and President George W. Bush signed it into law. 1
Hillary was also a vocal supporter of the Enough Project, an initiative launched by the liberal
Center for American Progress. The project called for an international certification system that would
require DRC mining companies and end users to account for their minerals’ origins. A similar
program had been established several years earlier for the diamond trade. Soon after Hillary arrived
in Kinshasa, former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo, who was from Congo, took her on a tour of a
hospital built in honor of his late mother. Mutombo worked with both the Clinton Foundation and the
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) on projects in the region. 2
Hillary spoke with students about her commitment to helping Congo turn things around. “We know
that the promise of the DRC is limitless,” she told them. “We will help you build a strong, civilian-
led government that is accountable and transparent.” From Kinshasa she hopped aboard a UN plane
(her US aircraft was too big) to visit President Joseph Kabila in the eastern city of Goma. There she
talked about efforts to reduce the rapes and sexual violence that had terrorized the population. She
talked about the lucrative mining trade in the country, too. “I am particularly concerned about the
exploitation of natural resources, like the mining and the timber, where the resources do nothing to
help the people of this country,” she said in front of the international media. 3
Her words were strong. But her actions during her tenure as secretary of state came nowhere near
the positions she had taken while in the US Senate. As one scholar from Johns Hopkins University put
it, the law she had cosponsored was “never implemented” by Secretary of State Clinton. 4
Furthermore, in 20 11 the DRC government held national elections that were widely condemned. But
the State Department showed little interest in trying to remedy them When the Congolese government
changed its constitution midelection in favor of President Kabila, the State Department called it an
“internal affair.” When the United Nations Group of Experts linked Congolese militia groups to the
neighboring government in Rwanda, it was proof of Rwanda’s military intervention into Congo that
had contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Some have asserted that Hillary’s State
Department sought to block or delay the publication of the damning portion of the investigation and
“quietly” asked Rwanda to stop its support for the rebellion. 5
What happened between 2006, when Hillary took those strong positions, and 2009, when she
became secretary of state? Did she change her position? And if so, why? We can’t ultimately know
why she carried out the policies that she did, but we can notice where changes in policies conformed
with the interests of Clinton Foundation large donors.
O n January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton sat on a gold-colored sofa in her Washington, DC, home and
announced via the Internet that she was forming an exploratory committee and filing with the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) to seek the presidency. “I’m in,” Hillary declared. “And I’m in to win.” 6
Poll numbers gave her reason to be confident. With George W. Bush’s poll numbers in a free fall,
there was a sinking feeling in Republican circles that the GOP would have a hard time keeping the
White House. And among Democrats, Hillary was the early front-runner.
Pundits, pollsters, and the American public were not the only ones paying attention. Hillary’s
announcement, in the weeks and months to follow, sent a cascade of foreign dollars flowing into the
Clinton Foundation and into the Clintons’ own pockets. Significant funds came from foreign investors
with massive investments in troubled corners of the world. Securing access to African business
opportunities had often required paying bribes to government officials. Now these investors were
looking for access and political cover at the highest levels of power in Washington.
A few months after Hillary’s presidential announcement, on July 6, 2007, the Clinton Foundation
announced that a reclusive Swedish mining investor named Lukas Lundin was committing $100
million through a charity called Lundin for Africa. According to the announcement, “the Lundin for
Africa commitment will be aimed, in large part, at approved projects in Africa, where the Lundin
Group has significant mining, oil, and gas interests.” 7 Lundin lived in Vancouver, Canada, and used a
series of offshore trusts to manage his business affairs. A friend of Frank Giustra, Lundin was the
head of a sprawling enterprise that cut deals with African warlords and dictators to gain access to
valuable minerals and oil. As one longtime observer put it, the company “pursued a strategy of
operating in countries under sanctions” and “building assets in countries such as Libya, Iran, and
Sudan, where many other competitors were unable to operate.” 8
This kind of business could be enormously profitable if you were willing to look the other way on
corruption and human rights. But the strategy also posed enormous risks. By 2007, when he made his
commitment to the Clinton Foundation, his company was under considerable political and legal heat
in the United States and Europe for some of its business dealings. The Lundin Group was one of only
two Western oil companies drilling in the Sudan, which was not only the focus of media attention for
massive human rights violations but was also on the US State Department’s list of terrorism-
sponsoring nations. Human rights activists were pushing for pension funds to divest stock in the
company. Even more troubling, the Lundin Group was under investigation by the International
Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in “war crimes and crimes against humanity.” (In
2012, the chief prosecutor decided not to press charges.) 9 In announcing the donation to the Clinton
Foundation, the family’s spokesman explained, “This is not to soothe a bad conscience but we want a
positive impact in countries in Africa where mining is conducted.” 10
That may be true, but it does not explain why the Clinton Foundation saw fit to accept such a large
contribution from such a questionable source.
The Lundin Companies were founded by Lukas’ s father, Adolph, who had made a lot of cash
mining in apartheid South Africa after the United Nations applied international sanctions. While other
companies had fled the country in the face of international pressure, Lundin stayed. When Adolph
died in 2006, Lukas continued where his father left off, working in the darker corners of Africa,
where few companies ventured. The Africa Oil Corporation, in which they owned a controlling
share, was active in Ethiopia’s Rift Valley, a region run by a corrupt dictatorial regime. Lundin also
had a spin-off called Horn Petroleum that was drilling in Somalia even though the government there
collapsed in 1990 and the country was essentially run by warlords. 11 Lukas Lundin was also
chairman of a company called NGEx Resources that was mining in Eritrea, a region that was
attempting to break away from Ethiopia. 12 The company also had a heavy stake in gold mining
operations in Mauritania and Ghana. 13
But perhaps the most lucrative mining operations in the Lundin portfolio were in the war-torn
DRC, which has known more death, corruption, and fighting than perhaps any other area of Africa.
The Lundins got their foot in the door by striking a bargain with a Marxist warlord. In early 1997
the Congolese rebel leader Laurent Kabila, who had once worked with Che Guevara, was in the
middle of a campaign to overthrow Mobutu Sese Seko, the country’s longtime strongman ruler. To
finance his rebel campaign, he sent a representative to Canada to talk to mining companies about
“investment opportunities.” His proposal was simple: give me money and I will give you lucrative
mining rights in my country once I seize power. One of the first to bite was the Lundin family, which
signed an agreement with the rebels and provided them with most of the funds they needed to march
into the capital. The Lundins reportedly paid $50 million to Kabila’s “finance minister,” the first
installment of $250 million they would give to the rebels. The rebels wanted cash and by all accounts
didn’t know what they were doing. Kabila’s minister of mines, Kambale Mututulo, had never seen
one. “He asked us to send him some books on how to run one,” noted one executive who met with
For the Lundins, this was an enormously lucrative opportunity. “There are moments in the history
of mining when you can make deals like this under excellent terms,” said Adolph Lundin at the time. 15
By the time Lukas Lundin made his $100 million pledge to the Clinton Foundation, the Congo
operation was making the company “staggering profits.” 16 But for the profits to remain staggering, US
policy needed to remain unchanged. The 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion
Act, which Hillary had cosponsored, placed those investments at serious risk, because they
threatened to overturn the political leadership in the country. What benefited Lundin was the status
quo in Congo. That status quo was preserved by Hillary’s disappointing failure as secretary of state
to implement any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years
earlier — before Lundin made his contribution. According to a July 2012 article in Foreign Policy, the
law had real teeth and empowered the secretary of state to intervene in a number of important ways.
Yet for reasons unknown, Hillary chose not to do so.
This failure to act could at best be described as a sin of omission — though it is a sin compounded
by her many promises as a senator to bring real change to the DRC. But Hillary was apparently
willing to intervene directly when other well-connected mining companies saw their interests
threatened, including foreign mining companies she had no real reason to support. In 2009 a DRC
government commission claimed that a Canadian company called First Quantum Minerals Ltd. had
won a lucrative concession for a Lonshi mine (worth $1 billion Canadian) through questionable
methods. According to the commission, First Quantum won the Lonshi concession without any
competitive bidding. The company had allegedly offered “cash payments and shares” to some
government officials to get it. DRC officials wanted to cancel the contract and suspend the company’s
license. But according to Le Monde Diplomatique , a prominent French publication, Hillary
intervened and tried to pressure the government to restore the company’s license. In January 2012
First Quantum received $1.25 billion for its Congolese assets. 17
Why did the US State Department seek to intervene for a Canadian company doing business in the
DRC, especially when 90 percent of the mine’s yield ended up in China? We do not know. But it is
certainly worth noting that First Quantum was founded by Canadian businessman Jean-Raymond
Boulle, a longtime Clinton friend and benefactor. It was Boulle who had put together the diamond
deal in Arkansas back in the 1980s when Bill was governor. Hillary wore one of his diamonds to the
Clinton inaugural ball.
But Boulle was not the only Clinton donor or ally who was seeking to exploit the DRC’s vast
Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner
and was appointed by Hillary to the State Department’s Young African Leaders Initiative in 2010. In
October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following
month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10
million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. 18 According to
a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including
“individuals operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and committing serious violations of
international law involving the targeting of children or women.” 19
Lawal, a Nigerian and devout Muslim who lived in Houston, was the head of CAMAC, an energy
company that did considerable business in Nigeria. He also had a long history with the Clintons. In
the 1990s, Bill had appointed Lawal to his Trade Advisory Committee on Africa. 20 When Bill visited
Africa in 1998 as president, Lawal accompanied him. Lawal’s CAMAC featured on its board former
Clinton energy secretary Hazel O’Leary and former Clinton senior White House official Dr. Lee
Patrick Brown. 21
According to a 2012 report in the Atlantic Monthly , Lawal leased a Gulfstream V jet from Dallas-
based Southlake Aviation and sent his half brother Mickey Lawal (vice president of CAMAC), along
with Reagan Mutombo (Dikembe’s nephew) and employees from his company, to Africa to secure the
prize. Also involved was a Texas-based diamond trader named Carlos St. Mary. If all went well, the
expected profit was a quick $20 million. 22
All did not go well. The Gulfstream ended up in Goma, Congo. The man they were dealing with to
secure the gold was a notorious warlord named Bosco Ntaganda. There are plenty of nefarious
criminal leaders in Africa, but Ntaganda belongs near the top of the list. The International Criminal
Court indicted him in 2006 for using child soldiers. He was also categorized as a sanctioned
individual on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control list. The consequences:
US citizens doing business with him faced the possibility of up to twenty years in prison.
As text messages obtained by UN investigators make clear, Kase Lawal knew he was dealing with
the notorious Ntaganda. And from the beginning he knew that the gold was from the DRC. To combat
the export of gold by warlords and criminal bans, the DRC government banned unregulated exports of
gold out of the country. 23 Lawal denied any involvement in illegal activities.
The “delegation” from Lawal and Mutombo transferred $5 million of the cash and awaited their
gold. But then DRC customs officials seized the Gulfstream and arrested everyone onboard. 24
The owner of the leased jet, David Disiere, got a call in the dead of night informing him that the
$43 million jet was loaded with ten boxes of gold but was now being held by authorities in Goma.
Detained by Congo authorities for the violation of several laws, Lawal and Mutombo contacted the
State Department to get them released. As the Texas diamond trader St. Mary described it later in a
legal deposition, “He [Mutombo] said that ... he had lobbied a lot on our behalf with Washington,
D.C. and he indicated that — that Kase was quite impressed with his ability — his ability to lobby at
the U.S. State Department on our behalf and was surprised at the number of people that he knew
because he was the former ambassador to the Congo under Clinton’s administration.” 25
They were released from jail following State Department intervention. No one involved has faced
criminal charges in the United States.
JVIean while, at the same time that Lukas Lundin made his $100 million commitment to the Clinton
Foundation, another major foreign investor with much at stake in Africa was doing the same thing.
Less than three months after Hillary announced her presidential bid, Bill was in London for a
meeting with a reclusive Saudi sheikh named Mohammed al-Amoudi. Amoudi was the head of a
sprawling conglomerate called the Mohammed International Development Research and Organization
Companies (MIDROC), which had extensive interests in Ethiopia including mines, agriculture, hotels,
hospitals, steel, and cement. 26
Born in Ethiopia to an Ethiopian mother and a Yemeni father, Amoudi grew up in Saudi Arabia and
became the kingdom’s second richest man. 27 Much of his wealth derived from his close relationship
with Ethiopia’s repressive government, which sold him government assets — mines, concessions, and
land — for deeply discounted prices. An enormous amount of his wealth was tied up with that
government and he took acts likely aimed at helping it stay in power. 28
On May 14, 2007, in a small ceremony, the sheikh announced that he was committing $20 million
to the Clinton Foundation. He started things off with a check for $2 million. 29
Amoudi was familiar with the money ways of Washington. His lobbying firm in Washington
included Senators George Mitchell, Lloyd Bentsen (who had been treasury secretary when Bill was
president), and Bob Dole as paid advisers. 30
In May 2007, when he made his commitment to the Clinton Foundation, the Ethiopia Democracy
and Accountability Act (H.R. 2003) had just been introduced by Congressman Donald Payne. The bill
quickly acquired eighty-five cosponsors in the House and passed on October 2, 2007. The United
States was sending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to Ethiopia every year: the bill called for
tying that aid directly to progress on human rights. For Amoudi ’s interests, a bill pressuring the
regime that had given him so much to reform would be a disaster. Amoudi ’s business interests were
protected by the ruling regime in Ethiopia. Indeed, some of his businesses had been purchased at
bargain-basement prices during the privatization of government assets. A democratic election
bringing in new leadership would put them at risk.
As the bill moved to the US Senate, many looked to see where Senator Clinton would come down.
After all, she was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time and
chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An Ethiopian human rights organization sent a letter in 2009 to former president Clinton at the
Clinton Foundation warning that the donation was an attempt to i nfl uence US policy toward Ethiopia.
“We have reason to believe that the huge donation to the Clinton Foundation was made on behalf of
the Ethiopian government. . . . Although we believe in philanthropy, there is something troubling with
this picture. By all accounts, Sheikh Amoudi, the owner of Ethiopia’s famous Sheraton Hotel, is not
known for much philanthropy.”
The letter, a copy of which was also sent to Hillary at the State Department, further noted what
observers in other countries had seen. “Local AIDS organizations that appealed to the billionaire
[Amoudi] for paltry sums were turned down,” the Ethiopians wrote to Clinton. “So why would a
wealthy man from one of the poorest countries in the world say no to organizations in his country and
yet easily cough up $20 million for an American organization 10,000 miles away? Is this just a
coincidence that the donation was made at the start of U.S. presidential elections?” 31
The letter also asserted that the Clinton Foundation had a close working relationship with the
oppressive government. “The work of the Clinton Foundation in Ethiopia is loosely intertwined with
government operations. We urge you to go beyond the government and to seek out independent
community organizations that are closely working with the poor.” 32
Neither Bill nor the foundation ever responded. Instead, as we will see, when Hillary became
secretary of state, Amoudi’s companies received special benefits from the US State Department,
including taxpayer funds.
Much of Amoudi’s wealth came from his relationship with Ethiopia’s longtime dictator, Meles
Zenawi. A diminutive man with a goatee and arched eyebrows, Zenawi had joined a rebel group
fighting the Marxist Mengistu regime. He quickly rose through the ranks. When they seized power in
1991, Zenawi was thirty-six and became head of the country. 33
It is hard to overstate how closely Amoudi’s wealth was tied to Zenawi ’s rule in Ethiopia. (When
Zenawi died in 2012 of a mysterious stomach ailment, Amoudi would say, “I lost my right hand.”) 34
Amoudi had been able to buy 70 percent of Ethiopia’s National Oil Corporation from the government.
One of the sheikh’s companies, Saudi Star, was given leases on tens of thousands of acres of
Ethiopian land. 35 The sheikh controls Ethiopia’s steel production and is the country’s exclusive gold
exporter, with one of his mines (also purchased from the government) producing more than ten
thousand pounds of gold and silver per year. 36
Zenawi ’s policies pushed local people off their lands, decimated forests, and encroached on game
reserves. 37 The list of his offenses is immense, reported Britain’s prestigious The Lancet, including
politically manipulating the foreign aid the United States and other countries provide: “badly needed
food and agricultural aid that had been given by foreign donors was being denied to hungry village
communities not allied with the ruling party.” 38
Zenawi was a shrewd technocrat known for “imprisoning his political opponents, withholding
development assistance from restive areas, stealing elections, and cracking down on civil society
NGOs.” He sentenced journalists (including two Europeans) to lengthy jail terms. As The Atlantic put
it, “From a human rights perspective, Zenawi’s rule has been abusive, heavy-handed, and self-
On the plus side, under his rule Ethiopia also experienced rapid economic growth. And it was this
economic growth that had led Bill Clinton to praise him as part of a “‘new generation’ of African
leaders.” 40 Zenawi’s ability to curry favor with some in the West while being a brutal dictator at
home led one observer to note, “He was a charmer in Geneva and London. He was a stern, even
brutal, autocrat at home.” 41
Despite his mixed record, many in the West — including the Clintons — embraced and legitimized
him. According to a leaked State Department cable, in 2007, on his way to attend the G20 summit in
Pittsburgh, Zenawi was invited to attend Clinton Foundation events in New York. 42
When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in January 2009, Ethiopian officials interacted
confidently with US diplomats. Despite public statements coming from Washington about promoting
human rights in Ethiopia and Africa, Ethiopian officials remained unfazed. In February 2010 Hillary’s
undersecretary of state, Maria Otero, met with the dictator and raised questions about the plight and
arrest of an opposition figure named Birtukan Midekssa. Zenawi told her that Midekssa will
“vegetate in jail, forever,” according to leaked State Department cables obtained through WikiLeaks.
As far as opposition groups were concerned, he said, “we will crush them with our full force.” 43
It was a shocking display of disrespect, given that the United States was sending his government
half a billion dollars a year. As Foreign Affairs put it, “Washington has expressed its concern about
these issues to the Ethiopian government, and the Ethiopian government has reacted not only
negatively but also insultingly — despite receiving $533 million in U.S. assistance in fiscal year
20 10.” 44
Zenawi aggressively went after not only domestic political opponents but also American
organizations, like the US Chamber of Commerce and Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center, that were
working in the country. According to another WikiLeaks State Department cable, diplomats raised
concerns with Zenawi about his new policy requiring organizations like the US Chamber of
Commerce and the Carter Center to seek government approval to use US money sent from the United
States in Ethiopia. Zenawi said as far as the Carter Center was concerned, “Maybe we are better off
if they do not come.” He was equally dismissive when diplomats raised questions about how the
government restricted access to Western food aid in certain regions for political reasons. 45
In 2012 Ethiopia was among the top sub-Saharan African recipients of US aid, with $707 million
in planned aid. As secretary of state, Hillary was required to evaluate whether countries receiving
American aid were transparent in how the money was spent. “The Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation Act prohibits U.S. assistance to the central
government of any country that does not meet minimum standards of fiscal transparency.” Unless, that
is, Hillary decided to grant the country a waiver. 46
State Department officials determined that Ethiopia failed to meet the transparency requirement.
According to leaked cables from the embassy,
Ethiopia does not, however, have specific laws or regulations governing the public disclosure of revenues and expenditures in
national budgets. There are no independent auditors of government budget data, so information is taken at face value. International
econo mis ts generally focus their criticism on the number of extra-budgetary items that are omitted from the national budget.
Notably, the national budget does not include over 100 state-owned enterprises or the over 70 “endowment” companies owned by
the ruling political party.
The list of offenses continued and concluded by noting, “In the past year, there have not been any
events that affected Ethiopia’s budget transparency and the Government of Ethiopia has not made any
steps towards improving its fiscal transparency.” When US diplomats asked the Ethiopian minister of
finance about the national budget, he “maintained that he does not have access” to complete books
either. Diplomats raised the “message to GOE [Government of Ethiopia] officials regarding
Ethiopia’s need to comply with USG [US government] fiscal transparency guidelines; however, this
message has fallen on deaf ears and only seems to aggravate relations.” 47
Despite the lack of compliance and the apparent lack of interest in moving toward transparency,
Hillary granted the government of Ethiopia a waiver, which allowed it to avoid transparency
Someone who has directly benefited from US assistance to Ethiopia is Sheikh Amoudi. Amoudi
owned Ethiopia’s Dashen Bank, which he used to finance his other companies and projects.
According to Dashen’s annual reports, the bank reaps financial reward through the USAID’s
Development Credit Authority, which is funded by US taxpayers and provides Ethiopian loan
guarantees. 49 The USAID also brokered a long-term contract in November 2009 specifically for
Almeda Textiles (which is owned by Amoudi) to import textiles into the United States. 50
When Hillary was appointed secretary of state, she brought in a group of advisers to shape
American policy toward Africa. But two individuals largely responsible for forming it didn’t have a
direct portfolio at State. Husband Bill was considered to be Hillary’s closest Africa adviser. He had
good contacts with several African presidents and traveled there regularly. 51
The other key unofficial adviser was former ambassador Joe Wilson, regarded as Hillary’s “grey
eminence for Africa.” 52 Wilson had served as ambassador to several countries in Africa. In 1997 he
was appointed special assistant to President Clinton and senior director for African affairs in the
White House. Wilson had the responsibility to “plan and execute” then president Bill Clinton’s first
trip to Africa, which supposedly raised his consciousness concerning the continent. 53
Wilson is perhaps most famous for the role he played in a controversy involving his wife, Valerie
Plame, a former CIA agent who had been outed by officials in the Bush administration. Wilson
charged that this was an intentional act of retaliation against him for debunking the administration’s
claims about Saddam Hussein’s seeking yellowcake uranium in Africa. It later turned out that the leak
of Plame’s identity came from the State Department, not the White House. Nevertheless, husband and
wife made something of a career out of the episode: Plame published a book about her experience,
which in turn became a movie starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts. Wilson’s claims about the
yellowcake uranium were later debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee. 54
Wilson was close to the Clintons. “He was very active with the Hillary Clinton [presidential]
campaign,” his wife noted. Wilson penned articles declaring that in contrast with then senator Obama,
Hillary had real-world diplomatic experience. On the campaign trail in Portland, Oregon, in April
2008, he said that Hillary was “easily the better candidate.” Joe Wilson also traveled with Bill
Clinton to Africa as part of a Clinton Foundation delegation. 55
Once Hillary was nominated for secretary of state, many believed she wanted to appoint Wilson to
a senior State Department post for African affairs. But the reality of facing a difficult Senate
confirmation deterred her. Many Republicans strongly disliked him. Still, Wilson was a strong
presence at the State Department despite his lack of an official post. “Wilson’s presence in the wings
is still strongly felt and the future incumbent in this post will constantly have him under their feet,”
noted one African business publication. 56
In January 2007 Wilson became vice chairman of a New York-based investment firm called Jarch
Capital. 57 A holding company focused on natural resources like oil, uranium, and gold, it specialized
in cutting deals in countries where it expected “sovereignty changes.” That’s a nice way of saying
countries that are at war. 58
“Ambassador Wilson will be instrumental in the growth of Jarch as it expands in Africa,
sometimes in politically sensitive areas,” noted the company in a press release. In other words, like
Adolph Lundin did in Congo, Jarch would be striking deals with warlords fighting local governments,
hoping to cash in when power changed hands. (As Jarch founder Philippe Heilberg, a former Wall
Street banker, explained his strategy of cutting deals with warlords, “You have to go to the guns, this
is Africa.”) 59
The venture was clearly off the grid as far as the Bush State Department was concerned. As
Harper’s quoted a knowledgeable observer in 2007, “The State Department isn’t supportive of
Jarch’s involvement because it knows that once Americans go after oil in the south any hope of a
national unity government collapses.” 60
But Jarch Capital pressed on anyway. Wilson was of particular help because he had dealt with
Sudanese warlords while he had served in the Clinton administration. He knew the region, and was a
master negotiator. These skills proved extremely valuable to Jarch.
Jarch was close to several warlords operating in the Sudan. In 2009, shortly after Hillary was
appointed secretary of state, Jarch took out a fifty-year lease on 400,000 hectares (or one million
acres — about the size of Vermont) in Unity State, South Sudan. 61 In addition to the rights to farm the
land, it procured oil and uranium rights as well. As the Financial Times put it, the deal had “a
decidedly 19th century flavor to it.” 62
Sudan was in the middle of a civil war and the United States had placed restrictions on US
companies wanting to do business in the country. So Jarch set up a subsidiary, Jarch Management,
which was registered outside of the United States, “making it easier to circumvent such
Jarch acquired the land by striking a bargain with Gabriel Matip, the eldest son of General Paulino
Matip Nhial, who was deputy commander in chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA)
and former head of the South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF). The general was also put on the Jarch
advisory board. SSDF bragged, “This company is set to become the largest producer of oil and gas in
South Sudan.” 64
Wilson’s firm continued signing up warlords and enriching their family members in exchange for
lucrative leases on rebel-held territory. In 2010 it signed up Sudanese General Gabriel Tanginya as
an “adviser” and leased a huge area of his native Jonglei state in what was called “Africa’s largest
land deal.” 65 Tanginya, who has been accused of instigating violence against civilians in southern
Sudan, was apparently a very welcome addition to the firm. Jarch declared that General Tanginya
“will give the Company much needed expertise in Jonglei and expand its expertise in Greater Upper
By the time there were national elections in 2011, the newly minted vice president of South Sudan
was Riek Machar, who was also an adviser to Jarch. Machar had been a rebel leader and later
apologized for his role in the Bor Massacre, in which thousands of people had been killed. 67
As South Sudan struggles with factional fighting following its independence in 2011, Jarch
Capital-linked warlords are in the thick of the fight. General Peter Gadet, a former member of the
Jarch Capital advisory board, is the target of international sanctions. According to the BBC, the
international sanctions are in response to “reports of atrocities committed in the first half of 2014. ” 68
The cluster of donors and advisers to the Clintons who rely on warlords and corrupt dictators is not
confined to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, or Sudan. It extends further south on the
continent and includes a longtime Clinton benefactor with close ties to the corrupt regime in Nigeria.
Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one
of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have
collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton
Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.
In his first eight years on the global lecture circuit, Bill had never been paid to speak in Nigeria.
But once Hillary was appointed secretary of state, he booked two of his top three highest-paid
speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each. 69
The two speeches were allegedly underwritten by Nigerian media mogul Nduka Obaigbena, who
owns Nigeria’s ThisDay newspaper. Obaigbena, a solidly built man “with a taste for bespoke Lanvin
suits,” professes “to live modestly and discreetly,” all the while maintaining a home in Lagos, a large
estate in Nigeria’s Delta State, and a sleek penthouse at the Ritz Carlton in Washington, DC. 70
Obaigbena casts himself as a rebel fighting Nigeria’s corrupt political establishment. But he’s
known more for his lavish parties and concerts, which have brought Beyonce and Jay-Z, as well as
Bill Clinton, to Nigeria at enormous expense. Often these lavish events come at a price for ordinary
Nigerians. When Clinton appeared at a ThisDay award event in 2013, he handed out checks to
schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their
checks from ThisDay bounce. 71
Obaigbena is close to the Nigerian government of President Goodluck Jonathan, to whom he serves
as an unofficial adviser. Jonathan has been accused of corruption by numerous international
organizations. (As the Associated Press puts it, Obaigbena has “close ties to major business leaders
and those in the ruling People’s Democratic Party.”) Hillary’s State Department said that Jonathan’s
tenure is marked by “massive, widespread, and pervasive corruption” at all levels of the Nigerian
government. 72 And yet, as with Ethiopia, Hillary granted the country a waiver for corruption so it
could continue to receive US assistance. Back in 2006, when Jonathan was the governor of Bayelsa
State, he authorized the transfer of $1 million from the government’s poverty alleviation fund to
Obaigbena’ s organization so he could bring Beyonce to Nigeria. 73
One longtime Clinton benefactor is businessman Gilbert Chagoury, who has also been implicated
in corruption and bribery in Nigeria. Born in Lagos, Chagoury comes from a Lebanese family and has
dual citizenship in Lebanon and the United Kingdom He built a financial empire in Nigeria with the
help of General Sani Abacha, a Nigerian dictator whose five-year tenure was “known for its
corruption and brutality.” 74
Chagoury served as a “front for the general’s extensive business empire.” And the two had a
business partner in their activities: Marc Rich, the fugitive oil and commodities broker. Chagoury
apparently worked with Rich to sop up oil assets in Nigeria and sell them on the oil market for the
benefit of General Abacha and his associates. The Nigerian media declared in 1999 that the “Gilbert
Chagoury-Marc Rich alliance remains a formidable foe.” 75
Abacha and Chagoury met when the future dictator was a young army officer. After Abacha carried
out a coup in 1993, Chagoury received prized oil concessions and government construction
contracts. 76 In exchange, Chagoury helped the general siphon off money and get it out of the country.
Abacha’s rule was highly criticized in Washington, where hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign
assistance were disappearing into European bank accounts. 77 During his rule, Abacha funneled
billions of dollars to foreign bank accounts. Nigeria’s lead anticorruption prosecutor at the time,
Nuhu Ribadu, put Chagoury at the center of the scheme. “You couldn’t investigate corruption without
looking at Chagoury,” he said. According to Ribadu, Chagoury helped steer more than $4 billion into
bank accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and the Isle of Jersey. 78
Recognizing that it helped to have highly placed friends in Washington, Chagoury started tunneling
money to the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee. He
contributed $460,000 to a Miami-based voter registration group tied to the DNC. (Because Chagoury
is not an American citizen, he is unable to legally contribute directly to a campaign.) As the
Washington Post put it, the nearly half-million-dollar contribution was given to “curry favor with
Clinton’s administration on Abacha’s behalf.” 79
Apparently it worked: in 1996, Chagoury and his wife attended the White House Christmas party. 80
More significantly, Bill effectively changed US policy toward Nigeria with a single sentence. The
United States government had been pressuring Abacha to step down and hold elections. Abacha was
expected to go. But President Clinton said in 1998, “If [Abacha] stands for election, we hope he will
stand as a civilian.” 81 In short, Clinton signaled that Abacha could stay; he simply needed to run as a
civilian. The New York Times called it a “shift” in US policy.
When Abacha died in 1998 (allegedly in the company of two prostitutes), the Nigerian government
and European authorities began investigating the missing money. 82 They quickly fingered Chagoury. In
2000 he was convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, of money laundering and “aiding a criminal
organization in connection with the billions of dollars stolen from Nigeria during the Abacha years,”
as PBS’s Frontline put it. (As part of a plea deal the conviction was later expunged.) 83 Chagoury cut
a deal with the Nigerians and Swiss, returning $300 million of his own profits in exchange for legal
immunity. Subsequently, the tiny island state of St. Lucia appointed him as its envoy to the United
Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), bringing him diplomatic immunity
and preventing prosecution in other European countries. 84 Why St. Lucia bestowed this honor on him
Chagoury’s apparent complicity in the looting of Nigeria by a brutal dictator might be enough to
deter most people from doing business with him. But not the Clintons. If anything, their relationship
has blossomed. Clinton has recently been described as Chagoury’s “close friend.” 85
Since his conviction in Europe, Chagoury has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. In 2009,
shortly after Hillary became secretary of state, he pledged a whopping $1 billion to the Clinton’s
legacy project. 86 During a speech Bill delivered in St. Lucia, the island’s prime minister extended
thanks to Chagoury for arranging the visit. 87 He was also an invited guest to Bill’s sixtieth birthday
party and attended the wedding of Bill’s longtime aide Doug Band. The Chagourys were also active
in Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid. Michel Chaghouri, a nephew in Los Angeles, was a bundler for
the campaign and served on the campaign staff. 88 Numerous other relatives gave the maximum $4,600
each to her campaign. 89
Chagoury’s legal troubles continued. In April 2010 Gilbert Chagoury and his brother Jack were
indicted by the US Justice Department in a massive bribery scandal involving $6 billion and
Halliburton. Bribes had allegedly been paid to secure contracts in Nigeria. Eventually Chagoury and
his brother were dropped from the case, and Halliburton settled with the federal government for $35
Bill has lavished praise on Chagoury over the years. In 2005 Chagoury was presented with the
Pride of Heritage award from the Lebanese community by Bill. 91 And in 2009 the Clinton Global
Initiative gave Chagoury’s company an award for sustainable development. 92 In 2013 Bill showed up
in Nigeria for a public ceremony involving one of Chagoury’s construction projects.
Why the Clintons continue to associate with, take money from, and have transactions with Gilbert
Chagoury remains a mystery No less an expert than Marc Rich, who had years of experience working
with Chagoury and Nigeria, once described the country as “the global capital of corruption .” 93
The Clinton Foundation has made its work in Africa a centerpiece of its global work on HIV/ AIDS
and development. Unfortunately, many of those who are paying it and providing it with funds have
profited off the worst excesses on the continent. One has to wonder why the Clintons would permit
themselves to be so closely tied to such a corrupt group of individuals.
Hillary, Bill, and Colombian Timber and Oil Deals
In early June 2010 Bill Clinton met Frank Giustra in Colombia to launch a $20 million fund for small
businesses. 1 The two had visited Colombia together numerous times: for paid speeches, to look in on
Giustra’ s growing investments there, and to launch a Clinton Foundation project in the country.
Giustra was invested in natural resources in Colombia. And he was looking to expand his holdings
in oil, natural gas, coal, and timber. The country had been plagued by violence and narcoterrorism for
decades and was slowly coming out of it, thanks in part to a large infusion of American foreign aid.
(Colombia was the fourth largest recipient of US foreign and military aid in the world.) It was also
desperate to get a free-trade agreement passed in the United States to jump-start its economy.
What that meant was that Hillary, as secretary of state, held much of the country’s future in her
hands. And as some unseen power of timing would have it, Hillary was set to arrive in Colombia the
very next day. In her memoirs, Hillary called the fact that she and her husband were both in the
country “a happy coincidence in our hectic schedules.” 2
It was the waning weeks of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe’s tenure in office. The thin,
bespectacled Uribe had first been elected in 2002 on a platform of fighting terrorism and violence.
When he took office, he later wrote, “Vast swathes of Colombia were under total dominion of the
narcoterroristas .” 3 For Uribe the fight was personal: his father had been killed by Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists in the 1980s. During his eight years in office, he had
achieved an impressive record of success. But term limits prevented him from running again. (He
tried holding a popular referendum that would get him another term, but Colombian courts rejected
it.) He would be out of office by August 2010 but still had substantial powers until the next election.
Hillary was popping over to Bogota from nearby Ecuador aboard a US government plane. After
her aircraft touched down at Colombia’s Catam Military Airport, she was greeted by US ambassador
William Brownfield and Colombian foreign minister Jaime Bermudez. Hillary expressed her strong
support for the Uribe government and closer ties with Colombia. “The United States will continue to
support the Colombian people, the Colombian military and their government in the ongoing struggle
against the insurgents, the guerrillas, the narco-traffickers who would wish to turn the clock back,”
she said. 4
These were not meaningless niceties. Only a couple of months earlier, three influential Democratic
senators — who were also Hillary’s friends — had written to her about cutting aid to Colombia. Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont had penned a letter
saying it was time to back away. “Given U.S. record budget deficits, we cannot afford to continue
assistance that is not achieving sufficient results,” they wrote. They also dinged Uribe on human
rights. “In particular,” they said, “human rights abuses by Colombian military personnel supported by
the U.S. continue, and those responsible are rarely brought to justice.” 5
Nor were they alone. Foreign aid for Colombia was never a popular subject among Democrats,
who were worried about human rights and labor rights conditions in the country. 6
From the airport Hillary headed into Bogota and met Bill at a restaurant in the northern part of the
city. With a few friends (it is unclear if Giustra was also there) they enjoyed cappuccinos and a steak
The next morning, June 9, Bill headed to Casa de Narino, the presidential palace, for a quiet
meeting with President Uribe. They met for approximately an hour and had what the media called an
“animated dialogue.” 7
Bill left Casa de Narino before noon. Hillary arrived for lunch with the president, after which they
signed a series of science and technology agreements. Most importantly for Uribe, Hillary also lent
her vocal support to a trade agreement between the United States and Colombia. “First, let me
underscore President Obama’s and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement,” she told RCN
Television. “We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass
it. We think it’s strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very
invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade
Agreement finally ratified.” 8
Uribe could not have been more pleased. It is also worth noting that her support for this agreement
represented a complete reversal of her position — and Obama’s — from the 2008 campaign.
Days after Hillary left Bogota, Prima Colombia Properties, which Frank Giustra has ownership
interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries, announced that it had acquired the right
to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline. The International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) calls this property “one of the world’s largest untapped
hardwood timber supplies.” 9 Through its Colombia-domiciled subsidiary REM International CISA,
Prima entered into an exclusive agreement with the Colombian government giving it the right to
“harvest 1,050,000 cubic meters of hardwood” on the west coast of Colombia. 10 The timber would
be cut along picturesque Huaca Beach in Choco and shipped to China. 11
Days later, Pacific Rubiales Energy, a company for which Giustra was the Canadian face,
announced that the Uribe government was giving the company the right to drill for oil on six lucrative
plots. 12 Pacific Rubiales acquired the largest exploration acreage in the Putumayo Basin, which sits at
the center of Colombia’s oil belt. The other plots were in the giant reserves east of Ciusiana-
Cupiagua, and three blocks in the Llanos Basin, a prolific oil-rich area at the foot of the Andes
It was a stunning success, given that Pacific Rubiales was a relatively new company with little
track record in the country. But these lucrative concessions helped the company grow quickly. As
German Hernandez, who oversees business operations for the company, explained in 2011, “[A few
years ago] we were fewer than 20 people, practically living in tents with mosquito netting. . . . Today
we are the number one project in the petroleum industry in Colombia.” 13 By the end of 2010 the
company was producing a net of seventy thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day in Colombia, and
boasted a market cap of over $8.3 billion. 14
According to Pacific Rubiales cochairman Serafino Iacono, Giustra’s role at the company is to
provide “valuable financial capital and political capital [emphasis added] along the way.” 15
Pacific Rubiales signed up as an early contributor to the Clinton Foundation. 16 Pacific Rubiales
and underwriters contributed over $4 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative
(CGSGI). 17 And as we have seen in several other cases, the company’s decision to give to a charity
thousands of miles away to fund work in Colombia struck local charities as odd. They, along with
labor-backed social welfare organizations, had been clamoring for the company to provide donations
for several health and welfare initiatives. They also wanted the company to raise the salaries of
employees. These efforts were rebuffed. Instead of flowing to local charities, the bulk of the
company’s charitable contributions were given to the Clinton Foundation. 18
Pacific Rubiales, despite its announced commitment, does not appear on the Clinton Foundation list
of donors. Repeated phone calls and e-mails to Pacific Rubiales to determine whether it honored
their commitment have not been returned as of this writing.
Giustra’s run of good business news in the summer of 2010 was not finished. Less than two weeks
after Hillary left, yet another of Giustra’s companies, Petroamerica, announced that Colombian
regulators had designated the company a “restricted operator,” which meant it was eligible to explore
for and produce oil. 19 Petroamerica had been founded only a few months earlier, in late 2009, by
what a Canadian business journal called “a group of part-time managers and directors.” 20 Now,
courtesy of the Uribe government, it was sitting on some very big prospects in Colombia. “Of all the
resource projects that I am involved with, this is the one I am most excited about,” Giustra told one
business publication. 21
The Clinton Foundation was integrated into US State Department energy initiatives in Colombia.
According to a leaked State Department memo, on November 8, 2009, a US government delegation
arrived in Colombia to explore the rapid expansion of energy and mining loans backed by the US
government in Colombia. “The energy sector in Colombia has big plans to expand and the Export-
Import Bank (Exlm) and the U.S. Trade Development Agency (TDA) want to be a part of this
expansion by providing financial backing and trade capacity building assistance.” When TDA
representative Patricia Arriagada arrived in Colombia, she met with mines and energy minister
Silvana Giaimo. According to a leaked State Department cable, in that meeting Arriagada was
“accompanied by Manuel Olivera, local director of the Clinton Foundation.” 22 The memo mentions
no other nonprofit organization involved in these discussions.
As a result of that delegation, the US government expanded energy and mining loans in Colombia. 23
One of the big projects funded by the US Export- Import Bank was a $280 million liquid natural gas
(LNG) barge that was to be used to transport LNG from Colombia to China. The barge was being
built for Giustra’s company, Pacific Rubiales. 24
Giustra had other projects in Latin America that received US taxpayer money. Giustra’s Endeavour
Mining arranged for Export-Import funding in September 2010 as part of an $858 million package of
loans for a copper mining project in Mexico called Baja Mining. 25 (According to an Endeavour
PowerPoint marketing presentation, it “closed” the deal.) The project involved developing an
underground copper-zinc mine near the Mexican town of Santa Rosalia. Endeavour was an adviser on
the deal, but Baja Mining was also a “core investment” for the firm, according to one investment
document. 26 US taxpayers were on the hook for approximately $420 million. 27
The Baja investment didn’t go well — at least for American taxpayers. According to the Office of
the Inspector General at the Export- Import Bank, the project was plagued with cost overruns. The
report also suggested that “corporate malfeasance” had taken place. As the report put it, “Our
inspection revealed evidence of inappropriate conduct by several parties including the Borrower’s
failure to make timely disclosure of significant cost overruns, inaccurate representations, allegations
of fraud related to one of the project’s local vendors, management impropriety, and an over-arching
lack of governance.” The report noted further that the Export-Import Bank had failed to perform
proper due diligence when approving the deal. The project apparently fell into default within six
months of financial closing. 28
The full extent of taxpayer funds spent and US government power exerted that helped Giustra
cannot be fully known. In Colombia, as in other countries, he uses a web of companies, shell
companies, foreign affiliates, and offshore entities that make tracking his investments extremely
difficult. In addition to the investments mentioned in this chapter, he also controls a private company
called Blue Pacific, which “owns ports under construction in Cartagena and Barranquilla, as well as
power plants, farms, mines, and other infrastructure assets” in Colombia. 29
Colombia had long been a focus of interest for the Clintons. During his presidency, Bill won praise
from the Colombians for pouring aid into the country to fight both drug cartels and a revolutionary
insurgency. In 2000 he had initiated Plan Colombia, an ambitious program to escalate the war on
drugs that came with more than $1 .3 billion in aid. 30
Once he was out of office, his attention shifted from the war on drugs to Colombia’s ambitions to
sign a free-trade agreement with the United States. The Colombian government wanted a free-trade
agreement so that it could sell its products, including natural resources, in the US market tariff free.
President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress generally favored the deal. Opposition
mostly came from Democrats (and organized labor) who felt the move would hurt wages for US
workers. Democrats also argued that Colombia’s human rights record was poor. 31
For Colombians themselves, it was clear that, as the leading Colombian newspaper, El Pais , put it
in 2006, “The support of Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will
be decisive.” 32
The story began, as it often does, with a lucrative speech. In June 2005 a South American business
group called Gold Service International offered Bill $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South
America. Gold Service was a keen supporter of the proposed US-Colombia free-trade agreement,
because it would boost Colombian exports to the United States.
This was a lot of money at that time. Though Bill’s fee would go up appreciably when his wife
became secretary of state, his average payment through 20 10 was $150,000.
Giustra loaned Bill his jet, and Bill made stops in Mexico City and Bogota, and then gave two
speeches in Sao Paulo, Brazil. 33 As Andres Franco, the group’s chief operating officer, explained,
“he was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came.” And Bill spoke openly about his
support for it. 34
Meanwhile, Bill made efforts to bring Giustra and Uribe together so that the Canadian investor
could expand his operations in Colombia. Thus, in September 2005 Bill hosted a “philanthropic
event” with Uribe. And as he often did, he mixed philanthropy with business. According to the Wall
Street Journal , the purpose of the meeting was to introduce the two men. As the Journal reported,
Uribe and Giustra “put up two chairs in a hallway and talked for about ten minutes. . . . Later in the
day, a top Clinton aide told Mr. Giustra that he heard the meeting with Mr. Uribe went well.” 35
In January 2007 Giustra’s new company, Pacific Rubiales, signed a pipeline deal with Ecopetrol,
the state-owned Colombian energy company. One month after the deal was sealed, Bill, Giustra, and
Uribe met at the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York. In March, they met again, this time in the
Colombian port city of Cartagena. 36
All along, Democrats remained opposed to military assistance to Colombia as well as the
Colombian free-trade agreement. 37 But Senator Hillary Clinton’s views on the matter remained
ambiguous. As one Latin American financial publication put it, when it came to her positions on trade
“we find a bit of everything.” She was in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and supported trade deals with Chile, Peru, and Singapore. But she was against the Central
American Free Trade Agreement and extending trade preferences with other South American
So the Colombians continued their courtship by various means.
In June 2007 President Uribe arrived in New York City to headline a dinner event at a posh hotel.
The event was titled “Colombia Is Passion.” In fact, the night was largely about Bill. Uribe presented
him with the “Colombia Is Passion” award for “believing in our country and encouraging others to do
the same.” 39
As Newsweek reported,
Eager to repair its image in the United States and help boost support for a controversial United States-Colombia free-trade
agreement, the beleaguered government of Alvaro Uribe came up with a clever PR move: give Clinton an award at a banquet,
where the popular former president would say nice things about the country.
The dinner included a video depicting Bill as a Colombian hero. Uribe even praised him as the
country’s unofficial minister of tourism. Bill praised Uribe in turn and declared that, while there was
currently a debate in Washington about the free-trade agreement, “[w]e need to remember that we are
friends.” 40 Then he invited Uribe to be a “featured attendee” at the annual Clinton Global Initiative
meeting in New York that September.
As it happens, publicity for the awards ceremony had been handled by Burson-Marsteller
Worldwide, a PR firm then headed by Mark Penn, a longtime political adviser and pollster for the
Clintons. 41 Penn, who was also serving as Hillary’s campaign manager for the 2008 run, was
advising the Colombians on how to get the free-trade deal through Congress. Uribe paid Penn’s firm
$300, OOO 42
Penn’s ties to the Colombians proved too embarrassing and he resigned as Hillary’s campaign
manager. For good measure, the Colombians let Burson go, too. 43
Also on the Colombian payroll was Hillary’s campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson’s lobbying
firm, Glover Park. The firm was paid $40,000 a month. While Wolfson didn’t work directly on the
Colombia account, he did have an equity stake in the firm. 44
The trade deal and Penn’s consulting arrangement soon became issues in the Democratic primary.
Courting the labor vote, Barack Obama had come out strongly against a free-trade deal with
Colombia. So did Hillary. In the sort of overheated rhetoric we often hear on the campaign trail, she
was uncompromising. “As I have said for months, I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the
deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” 45
Uribe, sensing the trade pact was imperiled by American politics, lashed out at Obama — but not at
Hillary. “I deplore the fact that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the United States, should
be unaware of Colombia’s efforts,” he said. “I think it is for political calculations that he is making a
statement that does not correspond to Colombia’s reality.” 46
Given that both Hillary and Obama were publicly opposed to the trade deal, either way it looked
ominous for Uribe. As one economic consultancy put it, “we are concerned that a Democrat win of
the presidency may stymie the FTA for even longer.” 47
Obama, of course, went on to win the nomination and the presidency. And Hillary, as his newly
minted secretary of state, was quick to change course on the trade pact. In early 2009, while the
Obama administration was reportedly still figuring out its trade policy, Hillary let Uribe know she
was “very proud to be working with Colombia” on the trade deal. As Colombian foreign minister
Jaime Bermudez Merizalde told the BBC after he met with Hillary in February 2009, “What we
talked about was that we have to work together to see how this issue can be handled in Congress.” 48
Hillary had come out swinging in favor of the trade pact when she met with Uribe shortly after Bill
in June 2010. By early 2011 she was helping lead the effort to pass the deal. “There are still
negotiations that are taking place,” she told reporters after meeting with Colombian vice president
Angelino Garzon. “We don’t want to send an agreement just for the sake of sending an agreement. We
want to send an agreement and get it passed.”
“Secretary Clinton’s remarks represent the clearest signal the administration has sent with respect
to its intentions to move the Colombia agreement forward in a specific time frame,” said National
Foreign Trade Council president Bill Reinsch. 49
It did not go unnoticed that this represented a complete policy reversal on Hillary’s part. She
justified the shift on the grounds that the human rights and labor situation in Colombia had improved.
Hillary claimed in a press conference that “[w]e have seen improvements in the human rights
situations in a number of countries,” and cited Colombia, among others.
But Hillary’s words concerning labor union conditions contradicted her own department’s most
recent human rights report. 50 The number of trade unionists killed had actually gone up in 20 10. 51
Hillary also claimed that the trade agreement was now a good deal for everyone. “The U.S.-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement would allow our businesses to sell goods in Colombia duty-free —
the same way Colombian goods have entered the United States for many years — and it comes with
important new guarantees on labor and human rights.” 52
That view was not shared by the AFL-CIO, which declared in 2011, “Colombia remains the most
dangerous place in the world for union members.” 53 Human Rights Watch reported that there had been
“virtually no progress” since 2006 in obtaining convictions for union violence, and the press cited
thirty-eight recent murders of trade unionists in the few months after Colombian elections in 2010.
The trade pact with Colombia was approved by Congress and President Obama signed off on it.
The pact benefited US businesses trying to sell products in Colombia and also boosted Colombian
exports to the United States. The Colombian government and business community has hailed it as an
important victory for the Colombian people.
In February 2012 Bill and Giustra were back in Colombia together for meetings and some golf.
Bill was playing in a golf tournament (the Pacific Rubiales Open, no less), which was a fundraiser
for the Clinton Foundation. Bill met with President Juan Manuel Santos.
Since then, Giustra’s interests in Colombia have run into trouble. For instance, the manner in which
energy concessions were handed out has come under fire. There have been media claims of a “juicy
concession” for Giustra from the Colombian government obtained with the help of Bill Clinton. 54
Colombian senator Jorge Enrique Robledo claimed the Uribe government showed favoritism to
Pacific Rubiales during the process of granting Colombian oil concessions. 55
Pacific Rubiales has been the subject of repeated complaints about “deplorable conditions” for
workers. The complaints included “contracts, work hours, pay, democratic guarantees, housing,
hygiene, transportation and the right to organize.” When leaders from the country’s petroleum workers
union Union Sindical Obrera (USO) tried to mediate, Pacific Rubiales reportedly blocked the public
highways in the region to prevent them from arriving. 56
Another of Giustra’s companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood, has also run into problems. In May
2011 the Ministry of Environment began monitoring the logging being done by Prima Colombia.
According to published reports, the company needed to answer for ten environmental violations,
including erosion of the natural wildlife habitat, shifting water currents in the area, and the alteration
of the vegetation cover. The National Environment Licensing Authority (ANLA) subsequently decided
to deny all environmental permits required by Prima Colombia. 57
Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Stvle
The 2010 Haitian Relief Effort
o n the afternoon of January 12, 2010, a devastating 7.0 earthquake shook the island nation of Haiti.
In less than a minute, the violent tremors leveled an estimated 25,000 government and commercial
buildings, more than 100,000 homes, and killed approximately 230,000 people.
When the earth stopped quaking, more than 1.5 million people were left living in makeshift tent
camps. “In 30 seconds, Haiti lost 60 percent of its GDP,” said Haitian prime minister Jean-Max
Bellerive. For a country whose history was plagued with natural disasters, corrupt leaders, and
abject poverty, it must have seemed like the exclamation point on some sort of cruel natural joke.
The international charitable response from groups like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross was
generous, as millions of people around the world wrote checks or donated via their cell phones.
Foreign governments committed funds, too.
Days after the earthquake, Hillary Clinton was en route to Port-au-Prince to inspect the damage. To
accommodate her, all flights to and from the island were halted for three hours. Hillary arrived on a
Coast Guard C-130, along with American relief workers and a supply of toothpaste, mustard, and
cigarettes her staff had purchased from US supermarkets the night before. She did not leave the
airport, to avoid impeding rescue efforts, but declared her deep sympathy for the people of Haiti and
offered assurances that America would be Haiti’s “friend, partner, and supporter,” with the State
Department and USAID taking a front and center role in the relief effort.
Bill Clinton was soon on the ground in Haiti, too. He had been appointed a United Nations special
envoy to the island in 2009 and traveled to Haiti regularly. With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill
teared up as he described what he saw.
The Clintons’ close friend and confidante, Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary’s chief of staff and
counselor at the State Department, was assigned responsibility for how the taxpayer money, directed
through USAID, would be spent. 1 Within days, the State Department conceived and created a funnel
that would direct the aid and relief money that would soon flood into the country. The Interim Haiti
Recovery Commission (IHRC) was given the task of executing an action plan developed with the help
of Haitian authorities and countries that were donating funds to the rebuilding effort. It was supposed
to prioritize the rebuilding of Port-au-Prince, with a focus on restoring the economy and government
Bill was promptly appointed cochair, along with Bellerive. Together, they constituted IHRC’s
Executive Committee, giving them concentrated decision-making power. In this role Bill was
ultimately responsible for the approval of any projects that would be funded by US taxpayer dollars
or international organizations. Clinton and Bellerive would prove to work effectively together. As we
will see, Bellerive would later go into business with members of the Clinton family in Haiti.
In public statements, Bill waxed romantic about how they would rebuild Haiti, like a phoenix from
the ashes, in a grand vision of social engineering. “I want them to close their landfills,” he told
Esquire magazine, “recycle everything and use the rest for energy. Wouldn’t it be great if they
become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” 3
It is hard to underestimate the role that IHRC would play in the disbursement of funds. As the State
Department itself noted, in addition to reviewing project applications and deciding if those projects
would be funded, “IHRC is the planning body for the Haitian recovery” In particular, as the US
Government Accountability Office (GAO) put it, IHRC was supposed to “coordinate donors, conduct
strategic planning, approve reconstruction projects, and provide accountability.” 4
With the massive expenditure of US taxpayer money, some things have improved in Haiti. Some
roads are considerably better than they were before. A large amount of debris has been removed. But
beyond that, by the measure of promises made by the Clintons, the efforts to rebuild Haiti, which
were largely controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton, have been a massive failure.
Five years after the earthquake, Haiti is not a “wireless nation.” Billions of dollars have indeed
been poured into the country, with Hillary and Bill having much of the say in how the funds were
allocated. But according to GAO, IHRC ignored the action plan and funding priorities that had been
set up by the Haitian government and donor countries. 5 Moreover, much of the taxpayer money
intended for practical rebuilding was squandered. 6 Funds for reconstruction have ended up in
worthless projects — while in several cases Clinton friends, allies, and even family members have
benefited from the reconstruction circumstances.
Natural disasters often create enormous opportunities for politically connected contractors to make
money courtesy of the rebuilding effort. Author and critic Naomi Klein calls it “disaster capitalism.”
Disaster capitalism need not be all bad. You do need qualified professionals to go into devastated
areas and begin the process of providing immediate relief and rebuilding infrastructure. An example
of where such efforts went well was in Indonesia, following the tsunami that devastated the region in
2004. Communities that were cut off from the rest of the country saw their services and infrastructure
restored, and crime and corruption were generally kept under control, according to the World Bank. 7
In the case of Haiti, the process was handled very differently. IHRC, for example, was supposed to
have a Performance and Anticorruption Office (PAO) to monitor reconstruction efforts and
investigate allegations of corruption. But it was eleven months before a single employee was even
hired as part of PAO. 8 What’s more, IHRC was never fully staffed, and much of the decision making
was left in the hands of key employees of the Clinton Foundation. 9
Less than a month after the earthquake hit, US ambassador Kenneth Merten sent a cable from Port-
au-Prince to State Department headquarters titled “the gold rush is on .” 10 A flood of eager
businessmen were rushing to the capital looking to obtain government contracts. But securing
contracts and business apparently required knowing the right people. Put simply, it was widely
believed you needed access to the Clintons.
Florida-based contractor J. R. Bergeron was one of several business owners jockeying to land
lucrative contracts to help with disaster cleanup. To compete for cash in what Bergeron called “the
Super Bowl of disasters,” he understood the Clintons to be the referees. 11 His company, Bergeron
Emergency Services, invested more than a million dollars to move employees and equipment to Haiti
even before landing a contract. But Bergeron knew he would have to do more than just demonstrate
expertise and readiness. As he later observed, “posturing and aggressive self-promotion in Haiti was
an inevitable part of this high-stakes competition. . . . Politics plays a large role.” 12
Bergeron hired two lobbyists, giving them the job of “reaching out to officials of the Clinton
Foundation’s Haiti earthquake relief efforts and the U.S. Agency for International Development.” 13
They were Mitch Berger and Alex Heckler; Heckler had served on Hillary’s national campaign
finance committee. Bergeron also says he made a donation to the Clinton Foundation. (Records
indicate he gave less than $250.) He failed to obtain any contracts.
The realities seemed clear. As one individual told the Wall Street Journal , “if you don’t have
Clinton connections you won’t be in the game.” 14
But those with impeccable Clinton credentials apparently didn’t need to hire lobbyists.
Merten’s cable specifically mentioned the arrival of longtime Clinton friend and confidant General
Wesley Clark in the weeks after the earthquake. 15 Like Bill, Clark was from Arkansas and had been
NATO commander during Bill’s presidency. Indeed, Clark had been one of Clintons’ favorite
generals and received several military promotions when Bill was in the White House. As the New
Yorker points out, Clark’s last three army jobs, including two at the highest rank, were awarded to
him without the army’s recommendation. 16
When Clark sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2004, Bill strongly backed his
candidacy. When Hillary ran for president in 2008, Clark raised money for her campaign. Clark also
serves on an advisory board of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Much later, in 2013, he signed the
first fundraising letter for a superpac backing a 2016 Hillary presidential bid. 17
According to Merten’s cable, Clark quickly scored a meeting with Haitian president Rene
Clark had come to Port-au-Prince in search of a home-building contract for a south Florida
company called Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. (Clark sat on the board of the
company along with former Florida governor Jeb Bush.) Clark was a big cheerleader for the
company. “It can do more for housing in Haiti, better and faster, than any other technology out there,”
he said. Innovida ’s ties to the Clintons ran even deeper than Clark. According to the South Florida
Business Journal , Innovida’s CEO Claudio Osorio was a “big fundraiser” for the Hillary 2008
campaign and had contributed to CGI. 19
Innovida had little track record of actually building homes. Yet the company saw its project fast-
tracked by the Haitian government and the State Department. 20 Innovida received a $10 million loan
from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti.
Sadly, the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio was indicted and convicted of financial fraud.
Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion,
of using the money intended for relief victims to “repay investors and for his and his co-conspirators
personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme.” 21 He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in
jail. Innovida collapsed.
It is hard to overstate the power the Clintons wielded in the disbursement of US taxpayer money for
Haitian relief. Esquire magazine called Bill the “CEO of a leaderless nation,” because of his role as
the cochair of IHRC. 22 The Miami Herald repeatedly referred to Bill as the “co-czar of the recovery
effort.” 23 Others called him “president of Haiti” or “viceroy” because of his powers. Hillary, as
secretary of state, had ultimate control over the dispersement of US taxpayer aid dollars. 24
Many Haitians believed the Clintons further demonstrated their power in Haiti when Garry Conille
became prime minister in October 2011. Conille had worked for Bill as a speechwriter and as his
UN special envoy chief of staff. 25 Conille ’s appointment was seen as a compromise, and the fact that
he was backed by Bill Clinton was touted by some Haitians as one of the reasons for his selection. 26
What happened in Haiti was the classic Clinton Blur, mixing philanthropy, politics, and business.
Bill arrived in Port-au-Prince wearing several hats and pursuing myriad agendas, both public and
private. As the Economist succinctly noted,
The strange multi-dimensional role that Mr. Clinton plays as co-chair of the IHRC, special UN envoy, former US president,
spouse of the US secretary of state, and head of his own foundation which supports projects in the country, will continue to lead to
confusion about who he advocates for and to whom he ultimately answers . 27
Pushback from within IHRC came almost immediately In October 2010 Jean- Marie Bourjolly, a
member of IHRC, wrote a memorandum to the cochairs and the other commission members cautioning
that by “vesting all powers and authority of the Board in the Executive Committee [Clinton and
Bellerive], it is clear that what is expected of us [the rest of IHRC] is to act as a rubber-stamping
body.” 28 Bourj oily’s concerns were not appreciated. Indeed, his memorandum was not included in the
official minutes of the October IHRC meeting.
Other commission members and employees co nfi rmed that Bill and Hillary got what they wanted
when it came to Haiti projects and contracts. As one employee noted, projects were approved
because “they were submitted by USAID and State.” Moreover, “as long as USAID is submitting it
and USAID is paying for it, they would be approved.” 29
In December 2010 nine of the fourteen Haitian IHRC members wrote an official complaint to
Clinton and Bellerive; they felt “completely disconnected from the activities of the IHRC.” IHRC was
moving forward on projects that didn’t seem to conform to the action plan that the Haitian government
and donor nations had agreed to in the months following the tragedy. The members warned that “we
risk ending up with a variety of ill-assorted projects, some of which are certainly interesting and
useful taken individually, but which collectively can neither meet the urgency nor lay the foundation
for the rehabilitation of Haiti, and even less its development.” 30
The GAO echoed those concerns, noting in May 2011, “funding for approved projects is uneven
across sectors and is not necessarily aligned with Haitian priorities.”
Bill’s role as unofficial “viceroy” raised questions in the Haitian community because of the
Clintons’ penchant for mixing politics with crony business arrangements in Haiti. Back when Bill had
been appointed special envoy for the United Nations in 2009, the Haiti Observateur challenged both
Clintons to “come clean about [Bill’s] relationship to the former Haitian president and he and his
wife’s business dealings in Haiti.” 31
“There have been whispers and rumors for quite a while about the Clintons’ choice connections to
the former president and particularly the telephone business in Haiti,” the paper said.
As president in 1994, Bill Clinton had sent troops to Haiti to return to power Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, the duly elected president who had been forced out in a 1991 coup. While president, after he
was restored to power, a special deal was granted to a small US-based company called Fusion
Communications. (The prime minister of Haiti at the time was Aristide friend and ally Rene Preval,
who was president at the time of the earthquake.) The Haitian government-owned telecom company,
Teleco, granted Fusion long-distance minutes from the United States to Haiti at a deeply discounted
price. With a large number of Haitians living in the United States and calling home, this was a big
Fusion was a relatively small player in the long-distance telephone market. But it was top-heavy
with operatives and politicians closely aligned with Bill and Hillary. The board of directors included
Tom “Mack” McFarty, Bill’s former chief of staff, and was headed by Marvin Rosen, who had been
chairman of the Democratic National Committee’s finance committee during Bill’s 1996 reelection
campaign. It was under Rosen’s tenure that the notorious White House fundraising coffees, rental of
the Lincoln Bedroom to large contributors, and foreign donations from China and Asia had
occurred. 32 Also on the board was Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor whom Bill had
appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia. 33
Teleco’s special arrangement with Fusion was supposed to be public, in keeping with the
regulations and laws of the FCC. But the company worked hard to keep it secret. As Wall Street
Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’ Grady, who broke the story, wrote, “By law the agreement is a
public document but Fusion wouldn’t give it to me until the FCC required them to do so.” It took her
eight years to get a copy of the contract. 34
It’s easy to see why. The contract gave Fusion access to the Haitian telephone network at a rate of
twelve cents a minute, even though the official FCC rate was fifty cents a minute. In short, it was a
sweetheart deal. Fusion says it “never made any improper payments or engaged in any improper
activity with regard to its relationship with Teleco.” But of course, it didn’t have to. 35
After the 2010 earthquake, more than a decade later, there were new telecom prizes available in
Haiti. The system was set up so that decisions on doling out contracts and projects went through the
In the months following the earthquake, the Clintons began pushing the idea of a wireless mobile
phone money-transfer system for Haiti. The idea was to enable friends and relatives to send money
directly to people in the quake-ravaged country. Hillary’s USAID was quick to send taxpayer money
via a grant; it also organized the effort. The Bill Gates Foundation also came on board. The Haiti
Mobile Money Initiative also offered incentive funds to companies who would establish mobile
money services in the country.
The initiative’s big winner was Digicel, a mobile phone company owned by Irish billionaire Denis
O’Brien. Digicel received millions in US taxpayer money for its TchoTcho Mobile system.
( TchoTcho means “pocket money” in Creole.) The USAID Food for Peace program, under direct
control of the State Department through Cheryl Mills, chose the TchoTcho system for its money
transfers. Haitians were given cell phones and a free TchoTcho account. When Haitians used the
system, they paid O’Brien’s company millions in fees. They also became users of O’Brien’s
TchoTcho program. 36
O’Brien had bought the company in 2008. After the project’s launch, Digicel’s mobile phone
subscriptions soared and its profit margins rose, winning praise from investors. 37 By 2012 Digicel
had 77 percent of the Haitian mobile phone market, a rise fueled in part by the fact that it was a
digital bank supplier.
Was the mobile money system a good idea? Very possibly it was. But the trouble was not in the
idea itself; rather, it was the fact that it was helping make O’Brien lots of money. From April 2011 to
March 2012 Digicel’s revenues increased 14 percent and its subscriber base jumped 27 percent. By
September 2012 Haiti had overtaken Jamaica as Digicel’s most profitable market. The Haitian market
became key to the success of Digicel. O’Brien granted himself $300 million in dividends from
Digicel in 2012. 38
O’Brien was in turn making money for the Clintons.
O’Brien arranged at least three speeches in Ireland, well as a speech in Jamaica. Bill’s October 9,
2013, speech at the Conrad Hotel in Dublin was his third in three years, “and was mostly facilitated
by billionaire Irish tycoon Denis O’Brien,” noted Irish Central. “Last year Clinton delivered the
keynote address at the Worldwide Ireland Funds annual conference in Cork. . . . The year before he
was flown over to Ireland on O’Brien’s private jet to deliver a speech at the Global Irish Economic
Forum in Dublin Castle.” 39 In October 2010 Clinton gave a speech in Jamaica for $225,000 on “Our
Common Humanity.” The speech was sponsored by Whisky Productions, in partnership with
O’Brien’s Digicel. 40
The timing of these paid speeches is also notable. The Haitian Mobile Money Initiative (HMMI)
was announced in June 2010. Three months later, on September 29, Bill gave a speech at Dublin
castle sponsored by O’Brien. The next day, Digicel filed notice of its intent to compete for HMMI
contracts. In January of the following year, Digicel became the first company to be awarded funds for
participation in HMMI.
On October 8, 2011, Bill gave a speech for the Global Irish Economic Forum, again facilitated by
O’Brien. The following day, Digicel was awarded $100,000 through HMMI, which it was to split
with fellow cell provider Voila.
On December 2 of the same year, IJS AID paid the first installment of what would eventually be
more than $2 million of taxpayer money into O’Brien’s Digicel Foundation, based in Jamaica.
According to government databases, Digicel had never received taxpayer money before.
The interlay of money and favors also included the use of O’Brien’s jet. When Frank Giustra’s
jetliner was not available, Clinton used O’Brien’s, a modest Gulfstream550 that seats twenty. 41
In addition to forking over these immense speaking fees, O’Brien was also a major contributor to
the Clinton Foundation, pouring between $1 million and $5 million into the Clintons’ legacy project
sometime in 20 1 0 or 20 1 1 .
The Clintons lavished praise on O’Brien for his generosity and business acumen. In 2012 Bill
named O’Brien a Clinton Global Citizen, an annual award offered by CGI. O’Brien received his
award before a cheering crowd as Bill praised him for his visionary leadership ability. Bill also
praised him in an article he penned for Time magazine titled “The Case for Optimism” 42
Ironically, Bill was conferring this award after an Irish government tribunal issued a scathing
report concerning how O’Brien had made his fortune in the early days of the Irish wireless industry.
The tribunal found that in the 1990s O’Brien had purchased properties for a government official
named Michael Fowry, who was responsible for Irish telecom policy. The properties included land
in Mansfield, England, and a home in Cheadle, England, that were purchased with funds from
O’Brien’s Credit Suisse account in Fondon. In exchange, the tribunal found, “Fowry went to
considerable effort to assist Denis O’Brien in securing the mobile phone license” that would end up
making him a very rich man. For his part, O’Brien denies ever giving money to government officials
and he was never formally charged by authorities. 43
But it wasn’t just connected businessmen who were benefiting from the rebuilding of Haiti. Clinton
family members did, too. Bill and Hillary had been looking for investors to come to Haiti. But it was
a risky prospect, given the infrastructure problems, social and political instability, and endemic
corruption. One possible bright spot was mining. Haiti is rich in natural resources — there is an
estimated $20 billion in gold, silver, and other precious minerals under the rocky Haitian soil.
In 2012 the Haitian government decided to do something it had not done in more than half a
century: grant permits for open-pit gold mining.
One of two recipients was a small North Carolina start-up called VCS Mining. The company had
little track record of mining operations in Haiti, or anywhere else for that matter. But its leadership
would later boast a board member with a familiar last name: Tony Rodham, Hillary’s youngest
brother. Rodham would join the board of advisors less than a year after VCS was granted the mining
permit. Another member of the board: former Haitian prime minister (and IHRC cochairman with
Bill) Jean- Max Bellerive.
The Haitian government gave VCS a “gold mining exploitation permit’ ’ (in the company’s words)
for a project in Morne Bossa, which could be generously renewed for up to twenty- five years. “This
is one of two permits issued today, the first permit of their kind issued in over five decades,” the
company proudly noted.
Rodham had no background in mining. More than half of his bio on the VCS Mining website
concerned his ties to his sister and her husband. 44
Not surprisingly, the deal provoked outrage in the Haitian senate. The mining concession was a
sweetheart deal. For one thing, the royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5
percent, which mining experts noted at the time was “really low.” “Anything under five percent is just
really ludicrous for a country like Haiti,” said mining royalties expert Claire Kumar. “You shouldn’t
even consider it.” 45
The episode resulted in a resolution by the Haitian parliament challenging the secrecy of the
process and calling for a moratorium on new mining permits. The resolution passed the Haitian senate
VCS Mining is continuing to build on its mining concessions in Haiti.
IVIeanwhile, connected businessmen continued to reap benefits from the reconstruction efforts.
For contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince, USAID went with Washington-based CHF
International. As Rolling Stone put it, CHF became “one of the largest USAID contractors in Haiti
and enjoys a cozy relationship with Washington.” 47
It turns out that the company’s CEO, David Weiss, had been the deputy US trade representative for
North American affairs during the Clinton administration. (He was also a 2008 Hillary for President
campaign contributor.) In addition, the corporate secretary of the board of directors is Lauri Fitz-
Pegado, who was a protege of Clinton commerce secretary Ron Brown. Fitz-Pegado had served in a
series of positions in the Clinton White House, including assistant secretary of commerce.
CHF received particular scorn from journalists on the ground in Haiti. According to Rolling Stone ,
the firmoperated out of “two spacious mansions in Port-au-Prince and maintains a fleet of brand-new
vehicles, [and] is generally considered one of the most ostentatious” groups working out of Haiti. 48
US AID contracts also went to consulting firms like New York-based Dalberg Global
Development Advisors, which was also an active participant in and financial supporter of CGI. In
spring 2010 Dalberg received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians
displaced by the quake from their homes and communities.
US AID ’s inspector general reviewed the firm’s recommendations and found them generally sloppy
and unusable. As Rolling Stone reported, “One of the sites they said was habitable was actually a
small mountain. ... It had an open-sided pit on one side of it, a severe 100 foot cliff, and ravines. . . .
It became clear that these people may not even have gotten out of their SUVs.” 49
One early initiative pushed by both Bill and Hillary was to provide transitional housing for those
left homeless by the earthquake. The plan was to give grants and funds to build approximately twenty
thousand temporary shelters for $138 million. But nearly a year later, an April 19, 2011, audit by the
USAID Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that only 22 percent of the shelters had been built
and that many of those were “substandard.” 50
The results were no better when it came to providing new permanent homes.
In December 2010 Bill and Hillary approved a “new settlements program” that called for fifteen
thousand homes to be built in and around Port-au-Prince. But by June 2013, more than two and a half
years later, the GAO audit revealed that only nine hundred houses had been built. The goal was
subsequently cut to twenty-six hundred. At the same time, the cost of the project almost doubled, from
$53 million to $90 million.
Even projects run through the Clinton Foundation and not the federal government achieved
When Bill decided that the United States needed to secure temporary housing for Haitian
schoolchildren (a legitimate priority), Clayton Homes approached the Clinton Foundation and offered
to help. The company was still in trouble with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for
sending thousands of bad trailers to the US Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. A class action brought
against Clayton Homes and others was eventually settled. 51
In Haiti the Clinton Foundation paid $4 million of private money for what were called “hurricane
proof trailers” that were “structurally unsafe,” and in some instances were found to have high levels
of formaldehyde, with insulation coming out of the walls. The fumes, mold problems, and stifling heat
made students sick. Many trailers ended up abandoned because they were poorly designed and ill
suited to the Haitian climate. 52
From Chappaqua, New York, Bill dreamed up the idea of a housing expo in Haiti that would bring
architects and design firms from around the world to create sustainable homes using composite
materials. 53 The project was dubbed Building Back Better Communities (BBBC). Each builder
erected a sample home for Haitians to live in. These buildings and designs were expected to be
adopted for widespread use in the earthquake-ravaged country. But fourteen months later, “most of the
model homes sat empty,” providing shelter for squatters and the occasional goat. 54
“It was a waste of money with no respect for the builders,” Gabriel Rosenberg of GR Construction,
a Haitian firm, said in a telephone interview. “We invested about 25,000 dollars. We expected to sell
those houses.” 55
“It was the biggest joke I’ve ever seen,” complained John Sorge, with the firm Innovative
Composites International (ICI). “ft was a hoodwink to promote the government ... the whole Expo
was a farce.” 56
By far the largest and most ambitious project for Hillary and Bill was their plan to build a clothing
factory in northern Haiti. The area had been untouched by the earthquake, but they authorized the use
of US taxpayer funds for rebuilding to create what would be called the Caracol Industrial Park. 57
The Clintons had actually been pushing this project for some time. Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s right
hand at State, was “credited with leading the effort for more than a year,” wrote the Cleveland Plain
Dealer , 58 Originally a straightforward plan for economic development, the project gained new
momentum as a means to both uplift the Haitian economy and house homeless workers. In the end, the
complex project required hundreds of millions in US taxpayer money and special legislation passed
through Congress granting tariff- free access to US markets.
Ostensibly designed for the benefit of the Haitian people, Caracol has shown mixed results. As we
have already seen, the best intentions often go awry in a place like Haiti. One thing is clear, however:
the most obvious beneficiaries of the deal were three family-owned companies with a long history of
supporting the Clintons.
To start things off, a major clothing manufacturer had to be induced to build a factory Sae-A, a
South Korean textile company, was lured to Haiti with a State Department commitment of $124
million for a power plant and basic infrastructure, as well as for employee housing. The Inter-
American Development Bank promised another $100 million. The Haitian government gave Sae-A a
fifteen-year break on taxes. Meanwhile, in the spring of 2010, Hillary, Bill, and Cheryl Mills pushed
for and secured the passage of the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP), a law that would allow
textiles to enter the United States from Haiti tariff- free.
Construction then began. However, before the omelet could be made, a few eggs had to be broken.
Three hundred sixty-six farmers, relatively prosperous by Haitian standards, were evicted from their
land to make way for the factory. The earthquake didn’t get them — but the factory did. “We watched,
voiceless,” Jean-Louis Saint Thomas, an elderly farmer, said. “The government paid us to shut us
The construction contract for employee housing went to a Minnesota-based firm called Thor
Construction. In addition to the contract rate, the firm received “danger pay” and “hardship pay,”
increasing its take by over 50 percent. Thor Construction executives, including the CEO, are heavy
contributors to Democrats.
The parameters of the job soon changed. The original estimate was that the worker houses would
cost $8,000. But due to cost overruns, the price tag quickly jumped to $23,409. The original plan was
to build twenty- five thousand homes. In the end, according to the GAO, little more than six thousand
were constructed. 60
In July 2012 Hillary and Bill showed up in Caracol for the factory’s grand opening, even as rubble
still clogged the streets in the capital city of Port-au-Prince. 61 The Clintons were joined by actors
Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, billionaire businessman Richard Branson, and fashion icon Donna Karan
to celebrate the factory’s opening. Hillary touted it as a great day for Haiti. Bill teared up.
For his part, Bill Vastine, a member of the USAID Shelter Team that established the project’s
original parameters, was aghast at the results. “If the American people saw the cost of this, they’d say
‘you’ve got to be out of your mind,”’ he told a reporter in 2014. 62
Perhaps those happiest were the US retailers — all of whom enjoy long-standing connections with
the Clintons — who would benefit from selling the low-cost products coming out of Caracol.
These included GAP, whose chairman and CEO Robert Fischer sat on the Hillary for President
finance committee. The Fischer family had been longtime Clinton financial supporters.
Another big beneficiary: Target Stores, which was founded and is still controlled by the Dayton
family. The Daytons have also been longtime Clinton financial supporters.
Wal-Mart also received tariff- free clothing from the factory. Hillary had sat on the Wal-Mart board
back when Bill was governor of Arkansas. While some Walton family members do not share the
Clintons’ politics, several have written checks to a pro-Hillary superpac since the factory opened.
Regrettably, Caracol has failed to live up to its hype. The project’s sponsors claimed that it would
create sixty thousand jobs. The actual number: about three thousand. The daily wage for workers is
two hundred gourdes, which is roughly five dollars. For workers at the factory this is obviously better
than nothing. But it is hard to believe such meager results were justified at such great expense. 63
In sum, little of the money that has poured into Haiti since the 2010 earthquake has ended up
helping Haitians. And how that money was spent was largely up to Hillary and Bill.
This fact has prompted two Haitian lawyers to petition Haiti’s Supreme Court of Auditors and
Administrative Disputes to demand an audit of Bill Clinton’s tenure on IHRC. The lawyers, Newton
Louis St- Juste and Andre Michel, have asked for information “to determine the relationship between
the former Head of State William Jefferson Bill Clinton and the firms that benefited from contracts
during and after his term as head of the IHRC.” 64
In the meantime, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw
their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims’ net worth hasn’t changed but that of the Clintons and
their associates surely has.
Quid pro Quo?
O n December 9, 2009, the State Department beamed out a video message from Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton. The occasion was “International Anti-Corruption Day” Seated in front of the
camera, she spoke about the important fight against political corruption around the world and praised
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) work combating bribery and
graft. The OECD is an international body of the world’s largest economies. Hillary herself chaired
the group in 2011, on its fiftieth anniversary. In the video, Hillary lauded OECD’s Anti-Bribery
Convention as “a milestone in global efforts to encourage responsible and accountable governance.”
She went on to declare that the United States “fully supports the OECD’s anti-corruption agenda.” 1
Fighting corruption and bribery in the developing world was an important focus during Hillary’s
tenure. As a State Department spokesman explained, she “elevated corruption as a major focus of
U.S. foreign policy. She also has promoted the importance of international anti-corruption
agreements, including the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.” 2
The OECD Working Group on Bribery specifically explains that “individuals and companies can
also be prosecuted when third parties are involved in the bribe transaction, such as when someone
other than the official who was bribed receives the illegal benefit, including a family member,
business partner, or a favorite charity of the official.” 3
How does she reconcile her anti-corruption stance with the many transactions involving her and
her husband that arguably present serious conflicts of interest, even in the best possible light? How
can she maintain that her decisions were unaffected by the millions given to her husband and their
family foundation, even if there were no explicit agreements? How does she not see herself as part of
Based on the OECD’s definition of bribery, there does not need to be an explicit quid pro quo. As
the US Sixth Circuit Court noted in a 2009 corruption case, a quid pro quo does not require “a
particular, identifiable act” when the funds were transferred. “Instead, it is sufficient if the public
official understood that he or she was expected to exercise some influence on the payor’s behalf as
opportunities arose.” 4 Friends, money, and politics are a dangerous cocktail. The Clintons should
know to avoid this kind of drinking while driving US policy.
Large commitments have been made by foreign businessmen with records of making payments to
government officials to gain influence. Gilbert Chagoury, for example, who has sponsored speeches
by Bill and committed $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative, has a long history of association
with corrupt transactions in Nigeria. Denis O’Brien, who has also arranged speeches and written
checks to the Clinton Foundation, was implicated in enriching government bureaucrats in Ireland to
help his cellular business. 5
The Clintons themselves have a history of questionable financial transactions. During their first
presidential campaign in 1992, concerns were raised about their position in a real estate development
in Arkansas known as Whitewater. There was also the matter of Hillary’s miraculous profit from
cattle futures, which turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000. No one ever proved that these
transactions were illegal. But a cloud hovered over their heads and, when Bill became president, he
and Hillary brought it with them to Washington.
In Bill’s first term as president, as both he and Hillary faced myriad allegations concerning
unethical conduct, his legal defense fund accepted an anonymous donation of $450,000 through a
Little Rock restaurateur named Charlie Trie. Clinton and Trie were close friends. Shortly after the
1992 election, Trie began channeling money to the legal defense fund and into the DNC’s so-called
soft-money accounts for the president’s reelection. The DNC became so concerned that the money
might be coming from China that it hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to investigate.
As Lenzner later wrote, “I could see why they were concerned; red flags were obvious. For
example, the money orders had different names on them, but the word ‘presidential’ was misspelled
on all of them — in the exact same way and in the same handwriting.” 6 Lenzner discovered that many
of these donations were from people who were making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year and could not
possibly be the source of these large contributions. Accordingly, Lenzner recommended the DNC
return the donations. The DNC agreed. But Bill initially refused. It was only after the cochairs of his
legal defense fund (a former attorney general and a Catholic priest) both threatened to resign that the
donations were sent back.
Following the 1996 election, the DNC was forced to return some $2.8 million in illegal or
improper donations, most of it from foreign sources. Of that amount, almost 80 percent was raised or
contributed by Trie and another Clinton friend, John Huang. Like Trie, Huang had known Clinton for
years and worked for the Lippo Group, an Indonesian conglomerate. Huang took a post as a DNC
fundraiser and quickly set about soliciting large sums of money from foreign sources. Huang arranged
for South Korean businessman John H. K. Lee to have dinner with President Clinton — in return for a
$250,000 donation. 7 He also arranged for Yogesh K. Gandhi, who claimed to be related to Mahatma
Gandhi, to meet in the White House with the president and be photographed being presented with an
award — in exchange for $325,000. Both donations had to be returned after the stories became
Meanwhile, more than one hundred “White House coffees” were held in 1995 and 1996 at which
large-dollar contributors paid for face time with the president. White House officials initially denied
that these were fundraisers, but schedules from Harold Ickes, the deputy chief of staff in the White
House, referred to them as “political/fundraising coffees.” White House officials even tracked the
“projected revenue” of these events, including who paid and how much. 9 Then there was the evidence
that, for the right contribution, you could spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom 10
The Clintons aren’t stupid people. They know the law and take pains to operate within it. Besides,
corruption of the kind I have described in this book is very difficult to prove. We cannot ultimately
know what goes on in their minds and ultimately prove the links between the money they took in and
the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates. That said, the
pattern of behavior I have established is too blatant to ignore, and deserves legal scrutiny by those
with investigative capabilities that go beyond journalism.
Over the last dozen years, the Clintons have been involved in hundreds of transactions (as private
citizens and public officials) with foreign governments, foreign investors, and foreign corporations
around the world. It appears from the Clinton Foundation donor list and the roster of those who have
sponsored speeches that there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or foreign investor in trouble with
the law that is not represented.
As we saw earlier, four of the Clinton Foundation trustees have been charged or convicted of
financial crimes. Is there another foundation anywhere in the world that has faced similar problems?
More to the point, why would a former American president choose to associate with such dubious
Hillary’s apparent involvement in these transactions is even more troubling. While Bill was a
private citizen, Hillary was still a government official. Her tenures as a senator and as secretary of
state are marked by an alarming pattern of large money flows: the sources of the funds, the amounts,
and the timing were frequently suspect. Many payments occurred as Hillary was grappling with vital
national security questions involving everything from uranium to the Keystone XL pipeline.
In fact, the money flow did not slow down when Hillary became America’s chief diplomat. On the
contrary, it accelerated , especially the funds from overseas. And the funds came from a collection of
troubling sources: foreign governments, third world oligarchs, and foreign corporations. The biggest
paydays came not from countries like Great Britain or Germany, but from countries and industries
with cultures where bribery and corruption are common and occur on a massive scale.
In March 2012 Hillary delivered remarks in the grand ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel in
downtown Washington, DC. The occasion was a dinner for Transparency International, an
international organization that fights corruption. Hillary spoke at length about how “sunlight [is] the
best disinfectant” and declared that fighting corruption is an “integral part of national security.”
Hillary said, “our credibility depends on practicing what we preach.” 11
But as we’ve seen, the Clintons have failed to live up to their commitments to President Obama, the
US Senate, and the American people to simply disclose the names of all Clinton Foundation major
contributors. Multimillion-dollar foreign contributions have not been reported. Contributions of
shares of stock in foreign companies that had business before the State Department were also not
disclosed. Foreign corporations that poured in millions have been hidden from view. Moreover, the
cases chronicled in this book are only the ones we know of.
And when it comes to Bill’s speeches, the Clintons have often failed to fully disclose who is
actually paying for the speeches. Why do the Clintons do this? Why do they put themselves again and
again in positions that raise serious questions about their ethical conduct?
Opinions run the gamut. Defenders claim that it is not about the money: Bill and Hillary don’t
really care that much about it. That’s an odd argument. If wealth is not the goal, why charge six- figure
speaking fees and pocket the money? Why not charge a minimal fee or donate the proceeds to charity?
Money definitely appears to be a factor. The Clintons are just like many in politics: money carries
serious weight. Gather enough weight and you can intimidate most people into not questioning how
you got it.
Indeed, as noted above, the Clintons have always been shamelessly transactional. During Bill’s
tenure as governor of Arkansas, for example, it was Hillary who benefited the family financially
through deals with those who wanted something from her husband. Her remarkable success in cattle
futures comes to mind. James Blair, who was an outside counsel to Tyson Foods, set up her accounts.
In the same period, Tyson was a beneficiary of several state actions. 12
Most recently, of course, the roles have been reversed. Those seeking help from Hillary became
the ones throwing money at Bill. Foreign money has flowed to the Clintons and their foundation from
people and entities with intense personal interests in the political choices of the secretary of state.
And in several instances that we have described, the evidence suggests that Hillary shifted course to
the benefit of those providing the funds.
Moreover, the latest game has been played not at the level of state or even national affairs, but on a
global scale. The era of globalization has opened up a bonanza of opportunities for businessmen
willing and able to cut resource extraction deals around the world. Many of these deals, as we have
seen, are made in developing countries where civilized rules do not always apply and where the
players involved are unsavory.
The Clintons are perhaps the most politically sophisticated public figures of their generation. They
know how things work in the corridors of power and around the world; they know that foreign
governments are trying to i nfl uence American foreign policy; and they know that bribery is rampant
around the world. They have numerous avenues for making money. Some of those avenues might not
be as lucrative as giving a $700,000 speech in Nigeria, but they would be much cleaner.
Even if nothing illegal occurred, one has to wonder about the political judgment involved. Surely
the mere appearance of selling American power and influence to foreign interests should be enough to
cause a former US president — and a possible future one — to steer well clear of such potentially
embarrassing entanglements. “Bribery interferes with trade, investment, and development,” Hillary
Clinton said at the OECD’s fiftieth-anniversary forum in 2011. “It undermines good governance and
encourages greater corruption. And of course, it is morally wrong — and far too common.”
On that we can all agree.
Xhis investigative project required an extraordinary amount of in-depth research that included
everything from reviewing Canadian tax records to Ukrainian shipping records. Because of the global
reach of this project, it also required tracking down information from sources around the world.
Because of the sensitive nature of this project, the researchers asked that their names not be included
in the acknowledgments. I am nonetheless grateful for their professionalism, doggedness, and
attention to detail.
The Government Accountability Institute has benefited from terrific leadership in our little more
than three years of existence. This includes our chairman and CEO Stephen K. Bannon, as well as our
board of directors, Owen Smith, Ron Robinson, and Hunter Lewis. I want to say a special thanks to
those who have supported our research over the past couple of years, which has offended both
Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Love and gratitude always to my children, Jack and Hannah. You both mean the world to me.
My family has been enormously supportive as I’ve walked through this complicated project.
Thanks to my wife, Rhonda (to whom this book is dedicated); my mom, Kerstin Schweizer; as well as
my family “up north”: Maria and Joe, Danny and Adam. Thanks, too, to Ava and Raquel. Welcome to
I’ve benefited from tremendous professional guidance and camaraderie over the course of my
writing career. I appreciate my agents, Glen Hartley and Lyn Chu, for their sage advice and counsel,
and was so pleased to be working again with Adam Bellow, a longtime friend, on this project.
As always, the author alone is responsible for the contents of this book.
CHAPTER 1: THE LINCOLN BEDROOM GOES GLOBAL
1. Solomon, John, and Jeffrey H. Bimbaum, “Clinton Library Got Funds from Abroad,” Washington Post, December 15, 2007,
2. Storace, Patricia, “Q&: How Bill Clinton Is Changing the World,” Conde Nast Traveler, August 15, 2007,
3. “Bluman v. Federal Election Commission Case Files,” SCOTUShlog, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-tilcs/cascs/bluman-v-federa]-
election-com mis sion/.
4. Von Oldershausen, Sasha, “Are the Clintons Trying to Duck Property Taxes in New York?” The Real Deal, June 17, 2014,
5. Marquis, Christopher, “Clintons Buy $2.85 M illio n Washington Home,” New York Times, December 29, 2000,
6. Van Natta, Don, Jr., Jo Becker, and Mike Mcintire, “In His Charity and Her Politics, Many Clinton Donors Overlap,” New York
Times, December 19, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/ 1 2/20/us/pol it ics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=all&_r= I &.
10. “Sorting Out the Pardon Mess,” New York Times , February 22, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/opinion/sorting-out-the-
11. “Carter: Rich Pardon ‘Disgraceful,’” CBSNews, February 21, 2001, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carter-rich-pardon-disgraceful/.
12. Berke, Richard L., “The Clinton Pardons: The Democrats; This Time, the Clintons Find Their Support Buckling from the Weight of
New Woes,” New York Times , February 23, 2001, http://www.nytimes.corn/2001/02/23/us/clinton-pardons-democrats-this-time-
13. Reid, Tim, “Donors List Raises Fears over Hillary Clinton Role as Secretary of State,” The Times (London), December 19, 2008,
14. Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, “Charity at Home?” Indian Express, October 18, 2010, http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/charity-at-
15. Hitchens, Christopher, “Why Are So Many Oligarchs, Royal Families, and Special-interest Groups Giving Money to the Clinton
Foundation?” Slate, January 12, 2009,
16. Calabresi, Massimo, “A Blip in Hillary Clinton’s Senate Lovefest: Bill’s Donations,” Time, January 14, 2009,
http://content.time. com/time/na tion/article/0, 8599, 1 871526, 00.html.
17. US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to be Secretary of State (2009), 8 (testimony of
18. Ibid., 11.
20. Calabresi, “A Blip in Hillary Clinton’s Senate Lovefest.”
21. US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to be Secretary of State (2009), 156 (testimony of
22. Ibid., 286.
23. “Saudis, Indians among Clinton Foundation Donors f Economic Times, India Times, December 18, 2008,
24. Allen, Jonathan, and Amie Parnes, II RC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton (New York: Crown Publishing Group,
Random House, 2014), 81.
25. “The Clinton Foundation,” Washington Post, December 21, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/ c ontent/ artic le/2008/ 1 2/20/ AR2008 1 2200 1647. ht ml
27. Ghattas, Kim, The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power (New York: Picador,
28. Jack, Andrew, “Charm Offensive Five Years after Leaving Office, Bill Clinton Is Applying His Famous Drive and Charisma to Talk
AIDS in Africa,” Financial Times, August 19, 2006.
29. Wiener, Jon, “Hillary’s Big Ethics Problem: Bill” The Nation, November 22, 2008, http://www.thenation.com/blog/hillarys-big-
30. Leigh, David, “WikiLeaks Cables: US Keeps Uzbekistan President Onside to Protect Supply Line,” The Guardian, December 12,
31. US Department of State, Embassy in Tashkent, “Uzbekistan: Rumors of Succession Planning, Government Reshuffling,” WikiLeaks,
July 31, 2009, http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TASHKENTI357_a.html.
32. Stump, Scott, “Fashion Week Cancels Show from Dictator’s Daughter,” Today.com, September 9, 2011,
CHAPTER 2: THE TRANSFER
1. Becker, Jo, and Don Van Natta Jr., “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton,” New York Times , January 31, 2008,
2. “How to Make Money in Kazakhstan,” TheNewswire.ca, October 14, 2011, http://www.metalinvestmentnews.com/how-to-make-
3. World Health Organization, “Summary Country Profile For H1V/A1DS Treatment Scale-Up,” December 2005,
http://www.who.int/hiv/HlVCP_KAZ.pdf. UNAIDS Sub-Saharan Africa Fact Sheet, report, May 25, 2006,
4. Nichol, Jim, “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests,” Congressional Research Service, June 20, 2008,
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/97-1058_20080620.pdf. Foust, Joshua, “The Gilded Age of Asia,” Foreign Policy, April 11, 2013,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/ll/the_gilded_cage_of_asia. Watt, Nicholas, “Kazakhstan’s Autocratic President Tells
David Cameron: I Would Vote for You,” The Guardian, July 1, 2013, http://www.theguardian.eom/world/20l3/jul/0l/kazakhstan-
5. Mayr, Walter, “Ex-Stepson Talks in Family Feud: Tapping Kazakstan’s Natural Resources,” Spiegel, May 19, 2009,
http ://www.spiegeLde/internationaTworld/ex-stepson-talks-in-family-feud-the-long-arm-of-ka zakhstan-s-president-a-625720-2.html.
6. Fove, James, “The Well-Connected Dictator,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-
wellconnected-dictato_b_67423.html. Kilner, James, “Copper Tycoon Tops Kazakhstan’s Rich Fist,” The Telegraph, May 15, 2012,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/kazakhstan/9268133/Copper-tycoon-tops-Kazakhstans-rich-list.html. Buckley, Neil.
“ENRC Founders Made Good in Kazakhstan,” Financial Times, May 3, 2013, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71al3774-b3e0-lle2-
7. Hoffman, Andy, “Renaissance Man,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 27, 2008, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/renaissance-man/articlel7988489/?page=all. Humphreys, Tommy, “Stop Taking Yourself so Seriously, Says Tycoon Frank
Giustra,” Mining.com, June 28, 2013, http://www.mining.com/web/stop-taking-yourself-so-seriously-says-tycoon-frank-giustra/.
8. Cernetig, Miro, “Frank Giustra: A Man of Many Hats,” BC Business, November 5, 2011, http://www.bcbusiness.ca/people/frank-
giustra-a-man-of-many-hats. Smith, Elliot Blair, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals (Correct),” Bloomberg.com,
February 22, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aa2b8Mj3NEWQ.
9. Canada’s Globe and Mail explained Giustra’s approach this way: “A mining promoter will buy a cheap ‘shell’ company already
listed on the stock exchange, gather some friends to help fund the acquisition, and then, some time down the road, load it up with
mining assets (remember the shuffle?) and do another share offering. These deals can be very lucrative, especially if you’re in the
promoter’s ‘circle of trust.’” Hoffman, Andy, and Sinclair Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in Mining,” Globe and Mail (Toronto),
globeadvisor.com, May 19, 2007, https://secure.globeadvisor.com/newscentre/article.html7/servlet/GlS.Servlets.WireFeedRedirect?
10. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.”
11. Remnick, David, “The Wanderer: Bill Clinton’s Quest to Save the World, Reclaim His Fegacy — and Elect His Wife,” The New
Yorker, September 18, 2006, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/09/18/the -wanderer-3.
12. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.”
13. Jenkins, Iain, “Fun and Games with Penny Stocks,” New York Times , March 9, 1996, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/09/your-
money/09iht-penns.t.html. McNish, Jacquie, The Big Score: Robert Friedland and the Voisey’s Bay Hustle (Toronto: Doubleday
Canada, 1998), ix, 45.
14. “Corporate Info,” Diamond Fields International Ftd., http://www.diamondflelds.eom/s/Management.asp (accessed 2014). Morais,
Richard C., “Friends in High Places,” Forbes, August 10, 1998, http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html.
15. Morais, “Friends in High Places.”
16. McNish, The Big Score, ix, 40.
17. Morais, “Friends in High Places.”
18. McNish, The Big Score, ix, 45.
19. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.”
20. Hoffman, Andy, “Who Sold Key Asset to Uranium One?” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 29, 2009,
21 . Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.”
22. Clinton, William J., “President’s News Conference with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,” American Presidency
Project, February 14, 1994, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/7pkK49652.
23. Nichol, “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests.”
24. US Department of State, “Visits to the U.S. by Foreign Heads of State and Government — 1999,” http://2001-
2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/15730.htm. “Kazakh President, Clinton to Meet,” American Metal Market, December 21, 1999. Kazakhstan
Goldfields Corp., “Open Letter to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,” December 20, 1999,
25. Sidorov, Dmitry, “An Interview with Sergei Kurzin,” Forbes, April 20, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/clinton-sergei-
26. “A Russian’s Underground Route to the Stock Market,” The Telegraph (UK), February 15, 2004.
27. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.”
28. Sidorov, “An Interview with Sergei Kurzin.”
29. “Wall Street Journal Publishes Letter from Frank Giustra that Corrects Misinformation,” Reuters, May 01, 2008,
http ://webcache.googleusercontent.cohttp7/webcache. googleusercontent.com/search?
30. Clinton Foundation, “Statement on Frank Giustra from President Clinton,” January 15, 2009,
31. Clinton Foundation, “Statement on Frank Giustra from President Clinton.”
After “Borat-gate” broke, certain points of fact and interpretation were vigorously disputed by both Frank Giustra and the
Clintons. Their objections can be summarized into two categories. First, the agreement struck by Giustra and his partners was with
private parties in Kazakhstan and not with the government in general or Kazatomprom in particular. Second, as Giustra and his
partners had been working on the transaction for over a year inside Kazakhstan, they did not need President Clinton to complete
The first objection is misleading in that it uses the answer to one question — did Giustra and his partners pay a private party for
the right to min e uranium in Kazakhstan? While the answer is technically yes, this obscures two much more pertinent questions.
First, did UrAsia enter into a commercial relationship with the Kazakh government through its state nuclear agency,
Kazatomprom? And second, was the deal in its entirety contingent upon Kazakh government approval? The answer to those two
questions is an unequivocal yes. What Giustra secured in 2005 were two joint ventures encompassing three uranium mining sites,
each of which featured Kazatomprom as a commercial partner by UrAsia ’s own corporate filin gs. For at least one of the sites,
the Kazakh government transferred the rights a mere five days after Clinton’s trip. Giustra et aL paid $350 m illio n for the rights to
that site and one other (to the Betpak Dala LLP). Without that transfer of rights, Giustra would have had nothing to buy.
The objection is more straightforwardly wrong for three other reasons. First, accounts of the deal given either before or
without reference to its controversy treat it as a deal with the Kazakh government — and Kazatomprom in particular — from start
to finish. This is true not only of Giustra et al.’s early 2006 victory lap in Canada’s Financial Post, but also a mining trade
publication’s interview with Sergey Kurzin, with whom Giustra had done business in Kazakhstan, off and on, since the mid-1990s.
Kurzin recounts that the deal started with a meeting he arranged for himself, Giustra, and other figures crucial to the deal with
Mukhtar Dzhakishev, head of Kazatomprom. Second, in late May 2009 Dzhakishev was arrested and brought up on cri min al
charges related to the UrAsia deal. By this time UrAsia’s successor company, Uranium One, had taken over the disputed
holdings. Anxious to calm investors, Uranium One’s then president Jean Nortier stated in no uncertain terms that both UrAsia’s
and Uranium One’s mining rights enjoyed explicit governmental approval: “UrAsia’s acquisition of these assets, as well as
Uranium One’s subsequent acquisition of UrAsia, were completed in accordance with the requirements of Kazakh law, and both
transactions were approved by the Kazakh authorities.” Third, UrAsia and Uranium One’s own corporate filin gs unequivocally
demonstrate that any transfer of subsurface mineral rights in Kazakhstan must be approved by Kazkhstan’s Ministry of Energy
and Mineral Rights (MEMR). Incidentally, MEMR’s head in 2005, Vladimir Shkolnik, later became head of Kazatomprom after
Dzhakishev was arrested. Not long after, his son-in-law, Vadim Jivov, ascended to the board of Uranium One (he eventually
became its president) while Giustra ’s good friend and Clinton Foundation donor Ian Telfer was chairman of the board. In any
case, the key fact revealed by the evidence is not so much Kazatomprom’s commercial participation with UrAsia, but the
Kazakhstan government’s complete authority over the company’s acquisition of mining rights and its subsequent operations within
the country. There would have been no deal had Kazakh authorities failed to sign off on it.
As to whether President Clinton’s participation was necessary to close the deal, consider the words of Gordon Keep, longtime
Giustra associate and officer for UrAsia: “we had only six weeks to complete a fourteen-week deaL” By the time Clinton joined
Giustra in Kazakhstan his friends at Canaccord and GMP Securities had raised $504 m illio n Canadian and put it on the line to
capitalize the venture, a figure cited in the Canadian financial press as a first for such an enterprise. Stipulating Giustra’s
commitment to global charity, it beggars credulity that an investor so experienced and shrewd with $504 million worth of credibility
on the line, would have introduced President Clinton, a politician legendary for his ability to strike a deal, into the delicate
negotiation’s closing moments if his presence was not integral to it. Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, obviously had
the power to kill the venture at whim, nor were Nazarbayev and Kazakhstan lacking for other prospective investors in uranium.
Nazarbayev’s eagerness for bribes was well known, including, allegedly, from multibillion-dollar Western companies such as
Chevron. What would he have expected from an effective, but comparatively small-time player such as Giustra? Furthermore, as
discussed below, Clinton had something very real to offer Nazarbayev: an endorsement for the OSCE chairmanship, an honor that
would have opened diplomatic and commercial doors in Europe otherwise closed to him. The Kazakh embassy posted notice of
the endorsement on lin e the same day, a fact that speaks for itself.
32. Stewart, Sinclair, and Andy Hoffman, “Uranium One Ensnared in Kazakh Scandal,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 27, 2009,
33. Chapman, David, “Glowing Prospects for 6 Uranium Miners,” Moneyshow.com, April 17, 2012,
http://www.moneyshow.com/articles. asp?aid=Global-27436. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to
34. US Department of State, “Kazakhstan: Business as Usual in the Uranium Mining Sector,” WikiLeaks, June 17, 2009,
35. Seccombe, Allan, “Kazakh Move Stuns Uranium One,” MiningMx, May 27, 2009, http://www. min in g mx.c 0 m/news/energy/ka 7 akh-
move-stuns-uranium-one.htm. See note 51.
36. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.”
37. Pan, Philip P., “Clinton Adviser Intervened with Uranium Deal, Ex-Kazakh Official Says,” Washington Post , February 24, 2010,
38. In 2008 Dzhakishev was arrested by Kazakh security forces along with three other top Kazatomprom officials. It was part of a
broader purge that included the head of the state-owned rail and energy companies. According to a leaked State Department cable,
the arrests were “denounced as politically motivated” by nongovernment observers. As with so much in Kazakh politics, the events
were imbedded with intrigue. Allegations were made that President Nazarbayev’s family actually owned part of Kazatomprom and
was profiting from the deals. The arrests were allegedly designed to cover it up. Dzhakishev was also a longtime friend of
Nazarbayev’s estranged son-in-law Rakhat Aliyev. In exile in Europe, Aliyev called Dzhakishev “a political detainee of Nazarbayev’s
US Department of State, “Kazakhstan: Changes and Charges at Kazatomprom,” WikiLeaks, June 3, 2009,
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ASTANA943_a.html. Pan, “Clinton Adviser Intervened to Help with Uranium DeaL”
39. Ibid., and videos of Dzhakishev: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Ze93MxqaQKPVHLkKmVpeQ; translation by Dr. David
40. Lenzner, Robert, “Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal,” Forbes, January 12, 2009,
41. Bronson, Lisa, “Testimony on Cooperative Threat Reduction Program before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities,” March 10, 2004, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2004_h/040310-bronson.pdf.
42. Pan, “Clinton Adviser Intervened with Uranium DeaL”
43. Ibid. Tufts University, “Board Members: Tim P hillip s,” http://www.tuftsgloballeadership.org/about/boards-and-staff/tim-philhps.
“About Us,” Beyond Conflict, http://www.beyondconflictint.org/about-us/stafl7timothy-philhps/.
44. Embassy of the Repubhc of Kazakhstan, “Weekly News Bulletin,” September 7, 2005, http7/prosites-
kazakhembus . home ste ad. c om / 0907 05 . htmL
45. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining DeaL Financier Donated to Clinton.”
46. NichoL “Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests.”
47. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, “Pro mis es to Keep: Kazakhstan’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship,” official
transcript, July 22, 2008, http://csce.gov/index.cfm?
Fuse Action=ContentRecords. Vie wDetail&ContentRecord_id=434&Region_id=0&Issue_id=0&ContentType=H.B&ContentRecordT)
48. Signature Resources Ltd., “Signature Enters into Acquisition Agreement with UrAsia Energy Ltd,” September 20, 2005,
49. Becker and Van Natta, “After Mining DeaL Financier Donated to Clinton.”
52. “Kazakhstan Timeline,” Knowledge Ecology InternationaL July 30, 2007, http7/keionline.org/content/view/110/l. Kazakhstan News
Bulletin, www.kazakhembus.com, 5, no. 52, December 7, 2005, http7/prosites-kazakhembus. homestead.com/December_7.pdf.
53. Canadian System of Electronic Disclosures (SEDI), http7/www.sedLca: “Access Pubhc Filings,” “View Summary Reports,”
“Insider Transaction Detail,” “Select ‘Insider Family Name,”’ “Search Tan Telfer,”’ “Select ‘Date of Transaction,”’ “Search
‘January 1, 2000-present day,”’ “Urasia Energy.” Hoffman and Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in Mining.”
54. Moriarty, Bob, “Girls and Peak Gold: Wheaton River Jr.,” 321gold.com, October 7, 2007,
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/moriarty/moriartyl03007.html (accessed November 2, 2014).
55. Hoffman, Andy, “Ian Telfer: ‘I’m More of an Opportunist than a Visionary,”’ Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 27, 2011,
vis ionary/ artic le 5 82085/?page=a 11.
56. Kirby, Jason, “Uranium Blockbuster,” National Post (Canada), January 31, 2006, http7/www.canada.com/story.html?id=c8c388e6-
57. “Coming Soon! A New Uranium Stock,” Stocks, Uranium, Exchange, Symbol, November 7, 2005,
http://socialize.morningstar.eom/NewSoeialize/forums/p/158426/2044148.aspx#2044148 (accessed November 2, 2014). “Uranium
Mining and Exploration Post #2119,” Investors Hub, November 7, 2005, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?
message_id=8398619 (Accessed November 02, 2014). See also “Uranium Blockbuster: Canaccord Adams-led IPO Financing of
Uranium Producer UrAsia Energy Faced Language Barriers, a 14-hour Time Difference and a Drop in the Equity Markets. But the
Deal Was Done,” Financial Post (Canada), January 31, 2006.
58. Uranium One, ‘Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company,” news
release, February 12, 2007, Uraniuml.com, http://www.uraniuml.com/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/256-uranium-
59. Lenzner, Robert, “Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal,” Forbes, January 12, 2009,
60. Becker, Jo, and Don Van Natta, Jr., “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor,” New York Tunes, January 30, 2008,
http ://www.nytimes. com/2008/01/3 l/us/po]itics/31donor.html?pagewanted=a]l&_r=l&.
61. Despite initially denying the meeting, Giustra later recanted and “his aides explain that the manner in which the Times ’ fact-checking
questions were asked was misleading and did not prompt them to recall the Chappaqua meeting.” Lenzner, “Clinton Commits No Foul
in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal.” Becker, and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.”
62. Hamm, Nathan, “Joe Biden’s Letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev,” Registannet RSS, March 23, 2007,
63. Becker and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.” Cooper, Helene, and Peter Baker, “Clinton Vetting Includes
Look at Mr. Clinton,” New York Times, November 16, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/ll/17/us/politics/17memo.html?
64. Love, James, “The Well-Connected Dictator,” Huffington Post, October 6, 2007, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-
wellconnected-dictato_b_67423.html. “Featured Attendees,” Clinton Global Initiative, http://re.clintonfoundation.org/page.aspx?
pid= 1 263 . Official Site of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, September 26, 2007,
65. Smith, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals (Correct).”
66. Uranium One, “Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company.”
Although reported by some as a buyout, it was actually a reverse merger. Frank Giustra and any other shareholders didn’t get
bought out; they actually took control of the new company named Uranium One. Hill, Liezel, “Uranium One Wraps Up UrAsia
Acquisition, Eyes London Listing,” Engineering News, April 23, 2007, http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/uranium-one-
“Immediately following the completion of the arrangement, Uranium One was owned approximately 60% by the former
UrAsia shareholders and approximately 40% by the then-existing Uranium One shareholders.” Uranium One Inc Annual
Information Form 2007, report, March 31, 2008, http://www.uraniuml.com/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/69-
67. As Platts Nucleonics Week reports, “For accounting purposes, UrAsia Energy became a subsidiary of what was now called
Uranium One, but in fact, it was UrAsia Energy shareholders who took control of the new company, according to documents filed
with Canadian securities regulators.” Stellfox, David, “Uranium One’s Russian Deals Pushes Kazakh Probes to the Background,”
Platts Nucleonics Week , June 18, 2009. As the London Stock Exchange reported, “each UrAsia common share will be exchanged
for .45 Uranium One common shares. After the completion of the transaction, it is expected that current Uranium One shareholders
will own approximately 40 percent of the combined company and current UrAsia shareholders will own approximately 60 percent.”
‘UrAsia Energy Ltd Plans Merger with SXR Uranium,” London Stock Exchange Aggregated Regulatory News Service, February 17,
2007. ‘UrAsia Energy Ltd (UUU),” FT Investegate/UrAsia Energy Ltd Announcements, February 12, 2007,
http ://www.investegate. co.uk/artic le.aspx?id=200702120726400752R.
68. Uranium One, “Uranium One Completes Acquisition of Energy Metals,” press release, August 10, 2007,
69. “Vadim Zhivov: ‘We Can Be Faced by a Deficit of Uranium,’” Rosatom, December 2, 2010,
http://www.rosatom.ru/en/presscentre/interviews/4eafad80432eea76ab83eb539abab8al. Rosatom Corp., “Russia to Acquire 17%
Stake in Canada’s Uranium One (Update 1),” news release, June 19, 2009, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co.,
70. Wright, Lisa, “Clintons’ Canadian Buddy,” Toronto Star, February 3, 2008,
71. “Contributor Information,” Clinton Foundation, https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors.
72. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.”
73. Becker and Van Natta, “Ex-President, Mining Deal and a Donor.” Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.”
74. “Contributor Information,” Clinton Foundation, https://www.ctaonfoundation.org/contributors?
category=%24250%2C001+to+%24500%2C000 (accessed 2014). “Frank Edward Holmes,” Investing.businessweek.com,
75. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the
Developing World,” press release, Clinton Foundation, June 21, 2007, https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/news-and-media/press-
Endeavour Mining Corporation, http://www.endeavournrining.eom/s/Management.asp.
76. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/pubhc/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.htmL ‘Transactions (Page 2),” Haywood Securities Inc.,
http://www.haywood.com/investmentbanking/searchtransactions. aspx?view=tombstone&field=year&year=2005# (accessed 2014).
77. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal . “Paul D. Reynolds,” Investing.businessweek.com,
78. “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.” Hoffman,
“Renaissance Man.” Kirby, “Uranium Blockbuster.”
79. “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.” “Robert Melvin
Douglas Cross MBA,” Investing.businessweek.com, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?
personId=8052452&ticker=BNK:CN&previousCapId=355 1 1 785&previousTitle=B2GOLD%20CORP .
80. “Global Metals & Mining Biographies,” BMO Capital Markets, http://www.bmocm.com/industry-expertise/mining/bio/ (accessed
2014). Uranium One, “Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company.”
81. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” Kirby, ‘Uranium Blockbuster.”
82. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “Sergey Vladimirovich Kurzin Ph.D.,” Investors.businessweek.com,
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person. asp?personId=13061746&ticker=OSU:CN. Sidorov, “An Interview
with Sergei Kurzin.”
83. Hoffman, “Renaissance Man.” “Board of Directors,” Uranium One, http://www.uraniuml.com/index.php/en/about-uranium-
one/board-of-directors (accessed 2014).
84. Clinton Foundation, “President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development Initiative in the Developing World.”
85. Wright, “Clintons’ Canadian Buddy.”
86. Todd, Douglas, “Frank Giustra: Rescuing Global Capitalism from Itself,” Vancouver Sun , September 13, 2008,
CHAPTER 3: HILLARY’S RESET
1. Strobef Warren, and Jonathan Landay, “Russia’s Dispute with Bush Could Strain G8 Talks,” Seattle Times, June 1, 2007,
http://seattletinres.eom/htmTnationworld/2003730264_putin01.htmL Finn, Peter, “Putin Threatens Ukraine on NATO,” Washington
Post, February 13, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.corn/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201658.htmL Goldgeier,
James, “The ‘Russia Reset’ Was Already Dead; Now It’s Time for Isolation,” Washington Post, March 2, 2014.
2. Lowry, Rich, “The Russian Reset to Nowhere,” National Review Online, March 7, 2014,
3. Mankoff, Jeffrey, “The Russian Economic Crisis,” Council on Foreign Relations, Special Report no. 53 (April 2010),
http :// www . google . c om/url?
4. Gornostayev, Dmitriy, “Clinton ‘By Far Not the Worst’ for U.S. Secretary of State,” Novosti Press Agency, November 23, 2008,
6. Owen, Matthews, “How Obama Bought Russia’s (Expensive) Friendship,” Newsweek, June 24, 2010.
7. Matthews, Owen, “Putin Backs a Major Thaw in Russian Foreign Policy,” Newsweek, June 12, 2010,
8. Mankoff, “The Russian Economic Crisis.” Aslund, Anders, and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Why It’s in the US Interest to Establish
Nomral Trade Relations with Russia,” Peterson Institute for International Economics (2011),
9. “Atomic Castling: Kre mlin Makes First Moves to Consolidate Nuclear Sector,” Russian Life, May/June 2006.
10. Weir, Fred, “Russia Plans Big Nuclear Expansion,” Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2007.
11. Paxton, Robin. “Russia Looks beyond U.S. to Conquer Uranium Markets,” Renters, December 10, 2009,
12. Rosatom, “Nuclear Weapons Complex,” page published April 19, 2010, http://www.rosatom.ru/en/about/activities/nuclear_weapons/.
13. Sinres, Dimitri K., “Russia’s Crisis, America’s Complicity,” National Interest, Winter 1998.
14. Grigoriadis, Theocaris, “Nuclear Power Contracts and International Cooperation: Analyzing Innovation and Social Distribution in
Russian Foreign Policy,” in Responding to a Resurgent Russia: Russian Policy and Responses from the European Union and
the United States, edited by Vino Aggamal and Kristi Govella (New York: Springer, 2012),
http://link. springer, com/book/ 1 0. 1 007%2F978- 1 -4419-6667-4.
15. Tran, Mark, “Iran to Gain Nuclear Power as Russia Loads Fuel into Bushehr Reactor,” The Guardian, August 13, 2010,
16. “Russia Uranium Plans May Include N. Korea,” UPI, March 29, 2007, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-
Resources/2007/03/29/Russia-uranium-plans-may-include-N-Korea/UPI-23571175193174/. Rosatom, “Russia Will Build a NPP and
Research Reactor in Venezuela,” press release, October 15, 2010,
http://www.rosatom.nl/en/presscentre/hi ghlig hts/f718748044.52bdaa90e3b265d4d.5340b. Jagan, Larry, “Myanmar Drops a Nuclear
‘Bombshell,’” Asia Times, May 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE24Ae02.htmL Khlopkov, Anton, and
Dmitri Konukhov, “Russia, Myanmar and Nuclear Technologies,” Center for Energy and Security Studies, June 29, 2011,
http://ceness-russia.org/data/doc/MyanmarENG.pdf. World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries,” October
17. US Department of State, Embassy in Brussels, “Russia Flexes Muscles on Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Supply,” unclassified memo,
WikiLeaks, October 15, 2009, https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRUSSELS1385_a.htmL
18. Medetsky, Anatoly, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets,” Moscow Times, December 23, 2009,
19. US Department of State, Embassy in Astana, “Kazakhstan: Russian Hand in Kazatomprom Drama?” unclassified memo,
WikiLeaks, December 22, 2009, https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ASTANA2197_a.htmL
20. Humber, Yuriy, and Maria Kolesnikova, “Russia to Acquire 17% Stake in Canada’s Uranium Ore,” Bloomberg.com,
21. Barber, D. A., “Hot Rocks: Hidden Cost and Foreign Ownership of ‘Clean’ Nuclear Fuel Emerging,” Huffington Post, March 30,
22. Fahys, Judy, ‘Uranium Company Deal Nearly Done,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 13, 2010,
23. Medetsky, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets.”
24. Dombey, Daniel, and Isabel Gorst, “Putin Vexes US over Iran Nuclear Power,” Financial Times, March 18, 2010,
25. Kosharna, Olga, “Nuclear Cooperation with Ukraine Proceeding According to Russia’s Plan,” Zerkalo Nedeli (Ukraine), October
26. See Canadian Charities reporting; for each year, follow the “Full List,” Section C.3, Qualified Donees Worksheet at http://www.cra-
27. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal Online, December 18, 2008,
28. “Qualified Donees — Fernwood Foundation — 2009,” Canada Revenue Agency, http://www.cra-
eng.action%253Fk%253DFernwood%252BFoundation%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253Dl%2526amp 0 /c
29. For the reporting periods of March 31, 2009, to March 31, 2012, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative functioned as a
pass-through to the Clinton Foundation. For each of these years, the average ratio of charitable donations to total expenditures was
0.88, thus 88 cents of every dollar given to CGSGI went to the Clinton Foundation. The ratio was significantly lower in 2013, but even
in that year, 100 percent of monies donated went to the Clinton Foundation, which is true of all years discussed. These figures are
obtained by comparing figures from Form T3010’s Schedule 2 and Schedule 6 (Lines 5000-5010) for the Clinton Giustra Enterprise
30. “Qualified Donees — Femwood Foundation — 2010.”
31. “C lint on F oundation D onors . ”
32. US Global Investors Funds — Form N-Q, report, May 25, 2011, http://pdf.secdatabase.eom/714/0001003715-ll-000272.pdf. “Our
Team,” U.S. Global Investors, http://www.usfonds.com/about-us/our-team/.
33. “Our Team.”
34. See, for example, the Endeavour Financial Corporation Investor Presentation, January 2009, p. 14.
35. See “Arrangement Agreement between SRX Uranium One Inc. and Urasia Energy Ltd.,” February 11, 2007.
36. https://www.youtube.corn/channel/UC9Ze93MxqaQKPVHLkKmVpeQ; translation by Dr. David Meyer.
37. “Uranium One Signs Credit Agreement and Provides Operational Update,” Market News Publishing, July 2, 2008,
38. Terentieva, Alexandra, “Mike Hitchen On lin e: I On Global Trends,” I On Global Trends, March 31, 2010,
39. “Where Eight Renowned Investors Think Commodity Prices Are Going,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 20, 2013,
commodity-prices-are-going/article 11435677/ (accessed 2014). Hoffman, Andy, and Sinclair Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in
Mining,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 19, 2007, Globeadvisor.com,
40. Uranium One, Inc., ‘Uranium One to Acquire Two More Kazakh Mines from ARMZ and to Pay Special Dividend to Minority
Shareholders of at Least US$1.06 per Share,” news release via Canada Newswire, June 8, 2010; see Canadian System for Electronic
Document Analysis and Retrieval (Sedar), Search Public Database.
41. Uranium One, Inc., “Notice of Special Meeting of Shareholders and Management: Information Circular for a Special Meeting of
Shareholders to Be Held on August 31, 2010, Relating to, among Other Things, a Related Party Transaction between JSC
Atomredmetzoloto Its Affiliates and Uranium One, Inc.,” August 3, 2010, p. 40. See SEDI, “Uranium One 2010-2011, Insider
42. Bouw, Brenda, “Russia Boosts Stake in Uranium One,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 8, 2010,
http://www.theprovince.com/business/Russian+faces+hard+sell+uranium+control/3378184/story.html? federated=l. “The Global
Intelligence Files — Russia 100628,” WikiLeaks, May 29, 2013, https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/66/661462_russia-100628-.htmL
43. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 201 1 Annual Report, 45.
44. “Russian Uranium Giant ARMZ Now Set to Control 50 percent of US Uranium Output,” Australian Uranium News, December 6,
20 1 0, http://australianuraniumquicksearch. blogspot. com/20 1 0/ 12/russian-uranium-giant-armz-now-set-to. html.
45. ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., “ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. Announces Acquisition of 51% Interest in Uranium One Inc.,” news
release, June 8, 2010, ARMZ.ru, http://www.armz.ru/eng/press/news/7kK209. Saunders, Doug, “Russian Takeover of Uranium One
a Benefit, Execs Say,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 27, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmaiLcorn/globe-investor/russian-takeover-
46. Finley, Bruce, “Russian Company Seeks Control of Canadian Uranium-mining Firm Operating in Rockies,” Denver Post, October
20, 2010, http://www.denverpost.eom/ci_16382080#ixzz32qCwALO.
47. “Krem lin Submits Bill to Turn Rosatom into All-encompassing State Nuclear Corporation,” Bellona.org, October 4, 2007,
nuc lear-c orporation.
48. US House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Ros-Lehtinen, Bachus, King, McKeon Send Letter to Geithner
Opposing Russian Takeover of U.S. Uranium Processing Facility,” October 6, 2010,
http:// archive s . republic ans . fore igna ffairs . house . gov/ news/ story/? 1618.
49. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Russia Can’t Export Wyoming Uranium, Nuclear Regulators Tell Barrasso,” Casper Star-Tribune Online,
March 29, 2011, http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/russia-can-t-export-wyoming-uranium-nuclear-regulators-tell-
barrasso/article_501 8f8f8-c59a-5e lb-9401 -cOl 9cd6a8625.html.
50. Harvey, Cole J., “The U.S. -Russian Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation,” NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative, June 22, 2010,
51. Congressman Ed Markey’s Office, “Markey & Fortenberry Introduce Resolution of Disapproval of Proposed Nuclear Deal,” news
release, Ed Markey Congress Website, May 25, 2010, http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/may-25-2010-markey-and-
52. Bleizeffer, Dustin, “Company: Uranium Won’t Go to Russia, Iran,” Billings (Montana) Gazette, September 28, 2010,
ba2c -00 1 c c4c 002e 0. html.
53. “Response to Request for Additional Information,” Donna Wiehers to Keith McConnell, October 18, 2010,
http ://pba dupws . nr c . gov/ doc s/ML 1 029/ML 1 0294043 5 . pdf.
54. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Wyoming Mining Officials Tout Technology, Safety, Exports,” Star-Tribune (Caspar, Wyoming), January 7,
55. US International Trade Commission, ‘Uranium from Russia,” Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Third Review), February 2012,
56. Helrner, John, “Putin Urges US Help for Oligarchs,” Asia Times Online, March 25, 2010,
57. “Salida Capital Foundation — Quick View,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.cra-
58. “Qualified Donees — Salida Capital Foundation,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.cra-
arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t30 1 0form22gifts-eng.action?b=835572066RR000 1 &fpe=20 1 1-12-
eng.action%253Fk%253DSalida%252BCapital%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253Dl%2526amp%253Bb 0 /
59. Salida ’s chief business partner in Ukraine is Robert Bensh, who served as an adviser to Boyko, who served as energy min ister and
later deputy prime minis ter under President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych fled the country for Moscow during the Ukrainian
uprising in 2014, and was granted Russian citizenship by Vladi mir Putin. Salida and Bensh are involved in at least two energy ventures
in the Ukraine including CUB Energy and EastCoal. For quotes on Boyko see: https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?
id=06K YI V43 1 3 & q=boyko% 20kre rnlin.
60. Rosatom, “Public Annual Report,” news release, Globalreporting.org, http://static.globalreporting.org/report-
P dfs/2013/358637c2a26b8a36867a5bf7be2dl 793.pdf.
61. The Salida Capital mentioned in the Rosatom report is owned under a Ukrainian subsidiary Energomashspetsstal, a heavy machine
company that produces industrial metal castings for the nuclear industry. The Salida Capital Foundation’s approximately $2.9 milli on in
donations to the Clinton Foundation, starting in 2010 and lasting through 2013, is directly lin ked to the the Canadian hedge fund Salida
Capital Corp., which does business out of the second floor of the CIBC building in downtown Toronto. Its principals at the time were
executives with a history in Canadian mining finance. Salida’s founder, Danny Guy, was listed in 2009 as an official partner, along
with Sergey Kurzin, of the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. In 2011 Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear agency that had
acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, began including a “Salida Capital Corp.” in its list of subsidiaries. Other Rosatom
documents traced the company in question to Panama City, Panama.
On October 3, 2006, Blumont Capital Corporation, which was registered in Canada, announced a new investment initiative with
several other Canadian-based hedge funds. One of those funds was Salida Capital Corporation of Ontario. Blumont’ s principal,
Veronika Hirsch, and Salida’s principal, Danny Guy, were both long-standing figures in the world of Canadian minin g finance.
Both of them were involved in bringing investors to Diamond Fields, the Canadian-based company that explored for diamonds in
Arkansas during Bill Clinton’s governorship. This is the same Diamond Fields in which Frank Giustra’s Yorkton Securities
On October 4, 2006, papers were filed with the Panamanian Division of Corporations for a Salida Capital Corp. On November
2, 2006, this entity was officially registered as a corporation in Panama. The very same day, a company called Blumont Capital
was registered in Panama by the same law firm, with the exact same board of directors. In fact, two other firms, both
corresponding to Canadian investment entities with long-standing ties to Canadian minin g finance were also registered the same
day, by the same law firm, with the same board of directors. One of the Panamanian companies was First Leeward Investments.
It just so happens that a Leeward Investments Company, headed by the colorful Matthew Brendan Kyne, is registered on the
same floor as Salida Capital in Toronto’s CIBC building. The other Panamanian firm. New Thornh ill Investments, corresponds to
the Canadian-based Thornh ill Investment Funds, run by the perhaps even more colorful Karleris Sarkans. Sarkans, whose book on
international negotiations details his experiences “being held down at knifepoint and gunpoint by Russians,” was sued in
Massachusetts in 2004 for investment fraud. Specifically, he was accused of investing in the Russian bond markets in 1997, when
he had specifically promised an investor that he had liquidated his position in the Russian market. The investor lost well over a
m illio n dollars. The action resulted in a default judgment against him .
Curiously, Salida Capital Panama has its own Ukrainian connection. Throughout 2008 Salida Capital Panama was used by the
Eastern Ukrainian company Energomashspetsstal (EMSS) to import heavy machinery from China and the Czech Republic. EMSS
makes castings and other large steel structures for mining and nuclear power plants. That same year a notorious Ukrainian
oligarch and politician named Andriy Klyuev appropriated Ukrainian state funds to EMSS for “capital improvements.” EMSS was
at that time 80 percent owned by the Industrial Union of Donbass (IUD). Ukrainian media reports as well as academic papers
associate IUD with one of eastern Ukraine’s most powerful men, Serhiy Taruta. Taruta’s business dealings were on the ropes in
January 2010. According to reports, Vladi mir Putin arranged considerable financial support for them. It is against this background
that Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency, as it successfully sought CFIUS approval to purchase a controlling stake in Uranium
One, acquired EMSS on or about December 9, 2010. Throughout 2010 Salida Capital Canada’s newly created charity, the Salida
Capital Foundation, received four separate infusions of money totaling $3,376 m illio n (Canadian). That year, Salida’s CEO,
Courtenay Wolfe, would join Bill Clinton onstage at the Clinton Global Initiative annual dinner to announce a charitable partnership,
and its foundation would give to the Clinton Foundation almost $800,000 of what would become approximately $2.9 million by
2013. According to Canadian government records, that money is over 80 percent of all donations ever given by Salida’s own
By June 2011 Rosatom’s corporate documents listed a “Salida Capital Group, Inc.; Panama City, Panama,” whose board
contact information matched that of the Salida Capital Corp. registered in Panama in November 2006. When Rosatom published
its annual report in 2012, it listed a Salida Capital Corp that it held “outside of the consolidated budget perimeter” through “PJSC
Energomashspetsstal” or EMSS.
It’s essential to understand that Salida Capital Corp. of Canada began publicly to do business in eastern Ukraine in the spring
of 2010. It invested first in a natural gas play that would become a Canadian registered firm called Cub Energy and then in a coal
operation in the Donbass region that became known as EastCoaL Both firms are well within the same financial, and therefore in
Ukraine, political orbit. In this context, the creation of the Salida Capital Foundation at the end of 2009 and its generous donations
to the Clinton Foundation demand the utmost scrutiny.
One final question must be asked: why Panama? Panama is perhaps less known than the Cayman Islands as a vehicle for
questionable financial dealings, but its virtues are well known by offshoring practitioners. Canadian law in particular allows for the
creation of private investment foundations, which can hold international business company stock, but which function essentially as
nonprofit corporations. Services exist in Canada to facilitate creating corporations in Panama that mir ror and work with Canadian
private investment foundations. The goal of such arrangements, naturally, is to shield assets from taxation and provide anonymity
for the beneficiaries. The same law firm created not only Salida Capital Corp. of Panama, but simultaneously Blumont Capital
Panama, whose Canadian counterpart was just beginning a new investment venture with Salida Canada. It also created the other
two firms with equally curious Canadian parallels. The firm, as it so happens, specializes in creating just such private investment
Was a Private Investment Foundation created for Salida Canada and its management and investors, who at some point came
to include the Russian government who had business before the very secretary of state to whose charitable foundation Salida ’s
own charity was even then making donations? Since my inquiries to both Salida and Lombardi-Aguilar went unanswered, I cannot
say for sure. I can only say the facts speak eloquently for themselves and demand an answer from the only parties who can give
In 2015 Salida Capital Canada changed its name to Harrington GlobaL
62. Strickland, Ken, and Andrea Mitchell, “Clinton, Obama ‘Memo of Understanding,”’ NBC News, December 18, 2008,
63. “Clinton Surpasses $75 M illio n in Speech Income after Lucrative 2010,” CNN Political Ticker RSS, July 11, 2011,
64. “William Jefferson Clinton Speeches, 2001-2012,” Turner.com,
65. “Former Russian Spy Recalls the Golden Age of Espionage,” The Telegraph (London), January 2, 2011,
spy-re c a lls-the -golden-age -of-e spionage . htrnL
66. Low, Valentine, “My Old Friend the KGB Spy,” Evening Standard (London), December 30, 2002.
67. Weiss, Michael, “Moscow’s Long, Corrupt Money Trail,” Daily Beast, March 22, 2014,
68. Renaissance Capital, “Uranium One: Company on Schedule; Market Lags,” May 27, 2010, centralasia.rencap.com/download.asp?
69. “Burn after Reading: Russian Spies in America,” The Economist, June 29, 2010,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/06/russian_spies_america; Smith, Ben, “Clinton Friend Was Spy’s Target,” Politico,
June 29, 2010, http://www.pohtico.com/btogs/bensnhth/0610/Chnton_friend_may_have_been_spys_target.htmL
70. “Spies Assigned to Gather Intel on U.S. Nuke Strategy for Russia, FBI Says,” NTI, June 29, 2010,
71. Levy, Clifford J., and Ellen Barry, “Putin Criticizes U.S. for Arrests of Espionage Suspects,” New York Times , June 29, 2010,
72. Soltis, Andy, “Soviet-style ‘Red’ Whine,” New York Post, June 30, 2010, http://nypost.com/20l0/06/30/soviet-style-red-whine/.
73. Baker, Peter, “The Mellowing of Willia m Jefferson Clinton,” New York Times , May 26, 2009,
74. “Bill Clinton Offers Rare US Praise for Putin,” RIA Novosti, September 25, 2009, http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130925/183725042.htmL
75. Anderson, Derek, “Uranium Agreement Faces New Objections from U.S.,” St. Petersburg (Russia) Times, October 12, 2010,
76. “Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate: Briefing by Representatives from the Departments and
Agencies Represented on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to Discuss the National Security
Implications of the Acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, and Government-
owned and -controhed Firm of the United Arab Emirates,” February 23, 2006, 6, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
109shrg32744/html/CHRG- 1 09shrg32744. htm.
77. “Press Release: Hillary Clinton Promotes Plan for Strong Defense and Good Jobs in Indiana,” American Presidency Project, April
12, 2008, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/7pkto96587.
78. “Facing CFIUS: Better Safe Than Sorry — Law360 Law360, July 5, 2012, http://www. law360.com/articles/355660/facing-cfrus-
better-safe-than-sorry. McConnell, Will, “Feds Query Another Chinese Mining Deal near TOPGUN,” TheDeal, May 23, 2012,
http://www.thedeal.com/content/regulatory/feds-query-another-chinese-mining-deal-near-topgun.php. “US Bars China Wind Farm
Deal on Security Grounds,” Space Daily, September 28, 2012,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_bars_China_wind_farm_deal_on_security_grounds_999.htmL Diye, Kelley, “CFIUS Rejects
Chinese Acquisition in U.S.,” news release, April 5, 201 1, http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/client_advisories/0654.
79. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 201 1 Annual Report, 44.
80. Uranium One, “Uranium One Enters into Definitive Agreement with ARMZ for Going Private Transaction for CDN$2.86 per Share
in Cash,” news release, January 14, 2013, Bloomberg.com, http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2013-01-14/abXujiJ0LYIk.htmL
81. Gutterman, Steve, “U.S. -Russian Civilian Nuclear Deal Boosts ‘Reset,’” Reuters, January 12, 2011,
http://www.reuters.com/article/201 1/01/1 l/us-russia-usa-nuclear-idUSTRE70A5LB201 10111.
82. Melbye, Scott (executive vice president — marketing, Uranium One), ‘Uranium One’s Experience in Kazakhstan,” Kazatomprom
Representative Office Opening, Washington, DC, slideshow presentation, May 2013,
83. Baker, Matt, “Moscow’s American Uranium,” Politico, October 18, 2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/moscows-
american-uranhim-98472.html. “Regarding the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, Jab & Antelope, Ludeman Projects and Well Logging
Equipment,” Donna Wiehers to Andrew Persinko and Roberto J. Torres, January 29, 2013,
84. “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World,” Pravda, January 22, 2013, http://engfeh.pravda.ru/russia/econornics/22-01-
85. “Rosatom Spares No Expense to Buy Out Canada’s Uranium One,” RT, January 14, 2013, http://rt.com/business/rosatom- 1 00-
86. Baker, “Moscow’s American Uranium.”
87. Flelms, Kathy, “Navajo Protests Canadian-Russian Uranium Mine at Big Boquillas,” Gallup Independent (New Mexico), May 21,
88. Horoshko, Sonja, “The Navajo Nation Nixes Access for Uranium Mi nin g,” Four Corners Free Press (Colorado), June 1, 2013,
CHAPTER 4: INDIAN NUKES
1. Baruah, Arnit, “India a Partner in Obama’s N-efforts?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), April 6, 2009,
2. Nayar, K. P., “Time to Tell a Prophetic Secret,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2004,
http://www . te le graphindia . c om / 1 04 1 224/asp/ nation/ story_4 1 69260. asp.
3. Sen, Chanakya, “A Review of Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb by Strobe Talbott,” Kashmir Herald,
December 2004/January 2005, http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/17051999/books.htmL
4. Krepon, Michael, “Looking Back: The 1998 Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Today , Arms Control Association,
May 2008, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_05/lookingback. Diamond, John, The CIA and the Culture of Failure: U.S.
Intelligence from the End of the Cold War to the Invasion of Iraq (Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Series, 2008), 268. Richey,
Bilf “Early Report 5/15: Indian Nuclear Test: All Eyes on Pakistan’s Response,” Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest (US
Information Agency), May 15, 1998, http://fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/980515-usia-fmrr.htm.
5. Sen, Canakya, “Two Villages and an Elephant,” Asia Times (Hong Kong), December 16, 2004,
6. Clinton, Hillary, “Remarks of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Special Event at the UN Social Summit,” UN Social Summit,
Denmark, Copenhagen, March 6-12, 1995, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/confl66/gov/950307142511.htm.
7. Clinton, Hillary, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007,
8. Federation of American Scientists, “Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to Be Secretary of State,” January 13, 2009,
http:// fas. org/irp/congress/2009_hr/hiUary. html.
9. “Clinton’s India Connection,” Tunes of India (Mumbai), August 24, 2003, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/Clintons-
Tndia-connection/articleshow/1 44077. cm s .
10. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier,” Sify Finance, n.d., http://www.sify.com/frnance/sant-singh-
11. Port, Bob, and Edward Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft S2 1 OG,” New York Daily News, November 3, 2000,
12. Haniffa, Aziz, “Arnar Singh Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Rediff India Abroad, December 19, 2008,
13. Venugopal, Arun, “South Asians Lean to Clinton ... or Obama,” WNYC News, February 4, 2008,
14. Gurley, George, “Vikranr Chatwal Turban Cowboy,” New York Observer, November 18, 2002,
15. Nelson, Dean, ‘‘Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine,” The Telegraph (UK), April 5, 2013,
16. Sherman, William, “Tax Deadbeat Is Livin’ Large: Clinton’s Buddy Owes City $2.4M,” New York Daily News, November 24, 2002,
18. Solomon, John, and Matthew Mosk, “When Controversy Follows Cash,” Washington Post, September 3, 2007,
19. Port and Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft $210G.”
20. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.”
21. US Department of State, Embassy in New Dehli, “Political Bargaining Continues Prior to Key Vote in Parliament,” WikiLeaks, July
17, 2008, https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08NEWDELHI1972_a.htnrl “Sant Chatwal Says WikiLeaks Allegations
Baseless,” Deccan Herald (India), March 18, 2011, http://www.deccanherald.eom/content/146770/F.
22. Chakraborty, Tapas, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later — Mulayanr Woos Dollars as Rahul Visits Death Zone,” The Telegraph —
Calcutta, September 8, 2005, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050908/asp/nation/story_5212257.asp.
23. Haniffa, “Anrar Singh Contributed M illio ns to Clinton Foundation.”
24. “Can Obama Make India an Ally?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), October 30, 2010.
25. “Indian ‘Cash for Votes’ MP Anrar Singh Freed on Bail,” BBC News, September 15, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
26. Chakraborty, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later.”
27. Aron, Sunita, “Clinton, Romance and All That ...” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 7, 2005.
29. “Rural Health Mission Launch Today,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 6, 2005.
30. “Clinton Visit: Celebs Show Has Just Begun, Says Amar,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 10, 2005.
31. Dutt, Ela, “The World Cannot Do without Muslims, and Mus lim s Cannot Do without America: Singh,” News India-Times (New
York), October 21, 2005.
34. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation,” Tunes of India (Mumbai), December 18, 2008,
35. Bagchi, Indrani, “. . . But May Slow Down N-deal, Doha Round,” Times of India (Mumbai), November 9, 2006,
36. Haniffa, Aziz, “Indian-American Community Upset with Hillary,” Rediff June 30, 2006,
37. Mcintire, Mike, “Indian-Americans Test Their Clout on Atom Pact,” New York Times , June 4, 2006,
38. Gerstein, Josh, “Clinton Taps Newly Active Indian Donors,” New York Sun , June 12, 2007, http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-
39. Srivastava, Siddharth, “India: Wheeling and (Nuclear) Dealing,” Asia limes Online, July 6, 2006,
40. “India Inc. Gives Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Business Standard News (India) December 20, 2008, http7/www. business-
standard. c om / artic le/e c onomy-policy/ india -inc -give s - milli ons -to-clinton-foundation- 1081 2200 101 2_ 1 . htnrl.
41. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” Counterpunch (blog), March 10, 2009,
42. Talbott, Strobe, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006),
43. “Foreign Policy Brain Trusts: Clinton Advisers,” Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, June 20, 2008,
44. Weiss, Leonard, “India and the NPT,” Strategic Analysis 34, no. 2 (March 2010): 255-71, doi:10. 1080/09700160903537856.
45. Markey, Edward J., and Ellen O. Tauscher, “Don’t Loosen Nuclear Rules for India,” New York Times, August 19, 2008,
http://www . nytime s . c om/2008/ 08/20/ opinion/20nrarkey. htnrl.
46. Pames, Ainre, “Clinton Allies Distance ‘Decisive’ Hillary from ‘Passive’ Obanra,” The Hill, September 10, 2014,
47. Meyer, Bill, “Bill Clinton Made Millions from Foreign Sources,” Cleveland.com, January 27, 2009,
48. “Not a Pygmy, but a Giant,” Indiatoday, March 17, 2003, http://incliatoclay.intoday.in/story/inclia-today-conclave-bill-clinton-lays-
49. Zajac, Andrew, “Clinton Donors Wooed, Baggage and All,” The Swamp ( Chicago Tribune), June 30, 2008,
50. Zajac, Andrew, ‘Talks Not Cheap for Clinton,” Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2008, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-04-
08/news/080407083 1 lsen-hillary-clinton-fee-disaster-relief.
51. Haniffa, Aziz, “From the Bottom of My Heart, I Salute You,” India Abroad, October 10, 2008.
52. Malhotra, Jyotl “Whoops of Delight Greet Nuclear Deal” BBC News, November 17, 2006,
53. “Democrats Will Not Hinder N-deal Passage: Hillary Clinton,” Indo-Asian News Service, September 14, 2008,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/democrats-will-not-hinder-n-deal-passage/articlel-337687.aspx. As the article points out:
“Democrats’ support is crucial as they control both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
54. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names (blog), March 10, 2009,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/10/what-did-hillaiy-clinton-do/. Haniffa, Aziz, ‘“I Have Staked a Lot on the Nuclear Deal,’”
Rediff, September 23, 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/23inter.htm.
55. Haniffa, Aziz, “US Senate to Vote on N-deal on Wednesday,” Rediff, October 1, 2008,
56. Haniffa, Aziz, “‘It’s the Greatest Moment in India-US History,”’ Rediff, October 2, 2008,
57. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation.”
58. “Clinton ‘Donation’ Complaint,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2008,
http://www.telegraphindia .com / 1 08 1224/jsp/nation/story_ 1 0294845 .jsp.
60. “Bill a Friend but No Dollars to Donate,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 19, 2008,
http://www.telegraphindia .com/ 1 08 1220/jsp/nation/story_ 1 027741 9.jsp.
61. “Indians Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), December 20, 2008.
62. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.”
63. Jacob, Sarah, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done: Chatwal to NDTV,” NDTV, February 13, 2010,
64. “I Have No Interest in Indian Politics: Chatwal,” Siasat Daily (Hyderabad, India), March 30, 2011,
http://www.siasat.com/english/news/i-have -no- interest-indian-politics-chatwal?page=0%2Cl.
65. Jacob, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done.”
66. “Amar, Jaya Expelled from SP,” Times of India (Mumbai), February 2, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amar-Jaya-
67. Nelson, “Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine.”
68. Clifford, Stephanie, and Russ Buettner, “Clinton Backer Pleads Guilty in a Straw Donor Scheme,” New York Times, April 17, 2014,
69. US Department of Justice, “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Federal Election Campaign Spending Limits Evasion Scheme and
Witness Tampering,” press release, April 17, 2014, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/Aprn/14-crm-400.htmL
70. US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, “Hotel Magnate Sant Singh Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Scheme to Evade
Federal Election Campaign Contribution Limits, and to Witness Tampering,” news release, April 17, 2014,
71. Colvin, Jill “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Campaign Finance Fraud,” Yew York Observer, April 17, 2014,
72. “Building the Chatwal Brand,” Leaders Magazine 33, No. 3 (2010),
CHAPTER 5: THE CLINTON BLUR (I)
1. “Lease Event: A Decade of Difference (Clinton Foundation Event),” Hollywood Bowl October 15, 2011,
http ://www.hollywoodbowLcom/tickets/lease-event-decade-of-difference-clinton-foundation-event/201 1-10-15.
2. Brown, August, “Live: Bill Clinton’s ‘Decade of Difference’ Party at Hollywood Bowl,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2011,
3. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC FHes Settled Enforcement Action against Schering-Plough Corporation for Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act Violations,” news release, sec.gov, June 9, 2004, http://www.sec.gov/Htigation/Htreleases/lrl8740.htm.
4. Matthews, Christopher M., “Clinton Defends FCPA, as U.S. Chamber Lobbies for Changes to Law,” Wall Street Journal , March
5. McLean, Bethany, “The Power of PhHanthropy,” Fortune, September 7, 2006,
6. Rauch, Jonathan, “This Is Not Charity,” The Atlantic, October 1, 2007, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/10/-this-
7. Takiff, Michael, A Complicated Man: The Life of Bill Clinton as Told by Those Who Know Him (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2010), 403.
8. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, “Bill Clinton and How to Use Convening Power,” Harvard Business Review, September 19, 2011,
9. Foer, Fran klin , “Ira Magaziner,” Slate, January 11, 1998.
10. Magaziner, Ira, Tushar Khadloya, and Samuel Magaram, “The Clinton Foundation: Global Operations,” Brown Journal of World
Affairs 15, no. 2 (January 31, 2009): 11-21, http://brown.edU/initiatives/journal-world-affairs/14.2/clinton-foundation-global-operations.
11. “Leadership Team,” Clinton Foundation, June 2014, https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/leadership-team.
13. BBB Charity Review, “Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” November 2013.
14. “Charity Navigator Profile — Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” Charity Navigator,
http ://www.charityna vigator.org/index. cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=31 1580204#. VFP40FYkHG4.
15. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Charges InfoGROUP’s Former CEO, CFOs, and Audit Committee Chair with
Fraud,” news release, March 15, 2010, http://www.sec.gov/htigation/litreleases/2010/lr21451.htm. Hubbard, Russell, “Deal Doesn’t
End Legal Wrangling for Infogroup, Gupta,” Omaha.com, February 19, 2014, http://www.omaha.com/money/deal-doesn-t-end-legal-
16. US Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Charges InfoGROUP’s Former CEO.” Hubbard, “Deal Doesn’t End Legal
Wrangling for Infogroup, Gupta.”
17. US Attorney’s Office, “Hotel Magnate Sant Singh Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Scheme to Evade Federal Election Campaign
Contribution Limits, and to Witness Tampering,” news release, April 17, 2014,
18. Cassin, Richard L., “Dahdaleh Prosecution Collapses, Key Witnesses from Akin Gump Refuse to Testify,” FCPA Blog, December
10, 2013, http://www.fcpablog.eom/blog/tag/victor-dahdaleh#.
19. Armstrong, David, and Alan Katz, “Billionaire Found in Middle of Bribery Case Avoids U.S. Probe,” Bloomberg.com, August 14,
2014, http7/www.bloomberg. com/news/2014-08- 14/bihionaire-found-in-middle-of-bribery-case-avoids-u-s-probe.htmI
20. Harper, Tom, “Victor Dahdaleh Corruption Case: Billionaire’s Fraud Trial Collapses after Key SFO Witnesses Refuse to Give
Evidence,” The Independent (UK), December 10, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/victor-dahdaleh-
21. Armstrong and Katz, “Billionaire Found in Middle of Bribery Case Avoids U.S. Probe.”
22. “Officials, Senior Power Company Executives Face Fraud Charges,” DominicanToday.com, February 13, 2013,
23. Lowe, Alison, “Company Seeking BEC Contract Dismisses Fraud Case against CEO,” Nassau (Bahamas) Guardian, February 25,
24. Moriarty, James F. (US ambassador to Bangladesh), “WikiLeaks — Ambassador Urges Prime Minister’s Adviser to Accelerate
Energy Sector Development,” July 29, 2009, https://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/07/09D HAKA741.html
25. “Lease Event: A Decade of Difference (Clinton Foundation Event).”
26. McLean, “The Power of Philanthropy.”
27. Meeting with Indian Generic Drug Industry, Proceedings of World Community Advisory Board, India, Mumbai, January 2005,
http://www.itpc global org/atomic-documents/ 1 1 057/ 1 1 059/WorldCAB2.pdf.
28. Quoted in Takiff, A Complicated Man , 408.
29. Kapstein, Ethan B., and Josh Busby, “Making Markets for Merit Goods: The Political Economy of Antiretrovirals,” Center for Global
Development, Working Paper 179 (August 2009), 24.
30. Khadloya, Tushar, and Samuel Magaram, “The Clinton Foundation: Global Operations: An Interview with Tushar Khadloya and
Samuel Magaram,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, January 31 and February 7, 2009.
31. “HIV/AIDS,” MSF USA, http://www.doctorswithoutboiTlers.org/our-work/medical-issues/hivaids.
32. Takiff, A Complicated Man, 407.
33. Dugger, Celia W., “Clinton Makes Up for Lost Time in Battling AIDS,” New York Tunes, August 29, 2006,
34. Jack, Andrew, “Charm Offensive Five Years after Leaving Office . . . ,” Financial Times, August 19, 2006.
35. US Department of State, Embassy in Maseru (Lesotho), “Former President Clinton Visits Lesotho to Promote Pediatric Treatment
Of HIV/AIDS And Launch New Clinic,” WikiLeaks, July 25, 2005, https://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05MASERU37LhtmI
36. McLean, “The Power of Philanthropy.”
37. “Clinton Global Citizen Awards, 2009 Annual Meeting,” Clinton Foundation, https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-
initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2009/clinton-global-citizen-awards. Goldstein, Dana, “Bill Clinton’s Rwanda Guilt,” Daily Beast,
September 23, 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/23/cgi-bill-clintons-rwanda-guilt.html. French, Howard W.,
“Kagame’s Hidden War in the Congo,” New York Review of Books , September 24, 2009,
38. See for example, Kagame, Paul, “President Kagame’s Remarks at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) Joint Partnership on
Nutrition,” paulkagame.com, August 5, 2013, http://www.paulkagame.com/index.php/speeches/1162-president-kagames-remarks-at-
39. Kenrpner, Jonathan L., “Welcome,” Mortgage Banking, September 2006.
40. Dowd, Maureen, “The Vodka Chronicles,” New York Times , April 6, 2008,
41. Baker, Peter. “His Changing World,” review of Giving by Bill Clinton, Washington Post, September 9, 2007.
CHAPTER 6: THE CLINTON BLUR (II)
1. Heldernran, Rosalind S., “For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a Beneficial Relationship,” Washington Post, April 13, 2014,
f2c 3 6d2b 1 245_story. html.
2. Dwoskin, Elizabeth, “Hillary Clinton’s Business Legacy at the State Department,” Bloomberg Businessweek , January 10, 2013,
3. US Department of State, USAID, “Partnering with Power Africa,” http://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/partner-power-africa.
4. Helnran, Christopher, “Obama’s ‘Power Africa’ Plan Greases Billions in Deals for General Electric,” Forbes, July 1, 2013,
5. Kolbert, Elizabeth, “Election Staffs Resemble Candidates,” New York Tunes , January 4, 1992,
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/05/us/election-staffs-resemble-candidates. html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Long, Ray, and James
Kimberly, “Governor Asked Lobby Firm to Help Pick Board,” Chicago Tribune, July 15, 2004,
http://articles.chicagotrihune.com/2004-07-15/news/0407150257_l_new-members-rod-blagojevich-new-board. “Hecate Energy
Leadership Team,” HecateEnergy, http://hecateenergy.com/who-we-are/.
6. Ahen, Jonathan, and Amie Parnes, I IRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton (New York: Crown Publishing Group,
Random House, 2014), 128.
7. Ibid., 9.
8. Ibid., 128.
9 . Diplomacy in a Time of Scarcity (Washington, DC: American Academy of Diplomacy, 2012),
10. Confessore, Nicholas, and Amy Chozick, “Unease at Clinton Foundation over Finances and Ambitions,” New York Tunes , August
13, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/20l 3/08/ 14/us/politic s/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions. html?
11. Hernandez, Raymond, “Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.,” New York Times ,
May 16, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-
while-a-state-dept-aide . html.
12. US Department of Commerce, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration, “Ethics Rules- Balancing Responsibilities
to the Government and Personal Interests,” February 1, 2013, 4,
13. Ibid., 6.
14. “Top Govt. Aides Shouldn’t Also Serve as Outside Consultants,” editorial, Boston Globe, July 29, 2013,
15. Ahen and Parnes, HRC.
16. McKelvey, Tara, “Hillary’s Power Grab,” Daily Beast, January 14, 2011, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20 1 1/0 1 / 1 4/hillary-
clintons-power-grab-for-usaid.html.Rieff, David, “If Disaster Aid Is Key to the War on Terrorism, Then Why Won’t Obama Appoint
Someone to Coordinate Disaster Aid?” New Republic, September 17, 2010, http://www.newrepubhc.com/blog/foreign-
17. Kinres, Mina, and Michael Smith, “Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success (with a Clinton’s Help),”
Washington Post, January 18, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/laureate-a-for-profit-education-fEm-finds-intemational-
18. “Laureate Vai Abrir urn Novo Campus No Sul,” ProfessorNews (Brazil), October 20, 2011,
19. Kinres and Smith, “Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success.”
20. Laureate International Universities, “President Bill Clinton Inspires Leadership Commitment among Students during Visits to
Laureate International Universities Member Institutions in Mexico and Honduras,” news release, May 5, 2012,
21. Kirnes and Smith, ‘‘Laureate, a For-profit Education Firm, Finds International Success.”
22. Bill Clinton stated, ‘‘Last year I had the opportunity to visit Laureate’s universities in Spain, Brazil, and Peru to speak to students,
faculty, and the communities that they serve.” Dorgan, Julie, “Laureate Education Inc.” Docstoc.com, April 3, 2012,
23. National Hispanic University, “Henry Cisneros, Former Secretary of HUD, Delivers NHU Commencement Address,” news release,
PR Newswire, May 15, 2013, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/henry-cisneros-former-secretary-of-hud-delivers-nhu-
commencement-address-20759409 l.html Rodriguez, Joe, “San Jose’s National Hispanic University Will Close by 2015,” San Jose
Mercury News, March 19, 2014, http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25379797/san-joses-national-hispanic-university-will-no-longer.
24. Melo, Fabiola, “Comision de diputados detecta siete universidades con irregularidades,” La Tercera (Santiago, Chile), June 19, 2012,
25. “El reporte de Laureate que explica como extrae ganancias de sus universidades en Chile,” el monstrador.pais, April 10, 2014,
And http://webcache. googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:ULzk8tbeAgMJ:sec.edgar-online.com/laureate-education-inc/10-k-
26. “Youth Leaders in Turkey to Benefit from Expansion of IYF’s YouthActionNet® Program,” news release, International Youth
Foundation, https://web.archive.org/web/201 101 13 13 1729/http://www. iyfnet.org/news/1432 (accessed 2014).
27. Laureate International Universities, “Laureate Education and International Youth Foundation Announce YouthActionNet® Program
Commitment at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting,” news release, September 21, 2010,
28. Otero, Maria, “Remarks to the International Youth Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Reception,” speech, International Youth
Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Reception, Washington, DC, October 7, 2010, http://www.state.gOv/j/149203.htm.
29. “USAID Awards International Youth Foundation with ‘Alliance of the Year’ for 2006,” news release, USAID, The Free Library,
February 21, 2007, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/USAlD l Awards ! International-1 Youth I Foundation t WitlU%27Alliance+of l the . . .
30. “International Youth Foundation 990 Tax Forms,” Foundation Center, http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/99Qresults.aspx?
990_type=&fn=&st=&zp=&ei=382935397&fy=&action=Find (accessed 2014).
31. Inter-American Development Bank, “Conference Tackles Youth Unemployment in Latin America,” June 24, 2011,
CHAPTER 7: PODIUM ECONOMICS
1. Mcintire, Mike, “Clintons Made $109 Million in Last 8 Years,” New York Times, April 4, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05clintons. html?pagewanted=print&_r=0. Sullivan, Sean. “Hillary Clinton on ‘Dead
Broke’ Comment: ‘I Regret It,”’ Washington Post, July 29, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
2. “The Keystone XL Pipeline Timeline,” Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.eom/washwire/20l4/04/24/the-keystone-
xl-pipeline -timeline/. Priaro, Mike, “A ‘Canada-first’ Canadian Energy Strategy,” Mining.com, October 26, 2012,
3. US Department of State, “Application of Transcanada Keystone Pipeline,” May 4, 2012, http://'keystonepipeIiiie-
xl.state.gov/documents/organization/ 1 89504.pdf.
4. Louvel, Yann, “Dodgy Deal: Keystone XL Pipeline,” Banktrack.org, March 5, 2014,
5. Volcovici, Valerie, “Opponents Seek to Debunk U.S. Keystone Claims; Joint Green Report,” Financial Post (Canada), August 30,
6. Baker, Peter, and Helene Cooper, “Clinton Is Said to Accept Secretary of State Position,” New York Tunes , November 21, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/ 1 l/22/us/politics/22obama.htmL
“Hillary Clinton 2008 Personal
http://pfds . opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_2008_Nom.pdf.
“Hillary Clinton 2009 Personal
http://pfds . opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_2009.pdf.
“Hillary Clinton 2010 Personal
http://pfds. opensecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_20 1 0.pdf.
10. Shecter, Barbara, “How TD Bank Is Linking Up with Bill Clinton to Win over the U.S. Market,” Financial Post (Canada), July 23,
11. “Centre to Honour Frank McKenna; Fomrer U.S. President Bill Clinton Will Be on Hand in Antigonish for Launch,” News and
Transcript (New Brunswick), April 8, 2011. “Executive Biographies: Frank McKenna,” TD Bank Financial Group, 2014,
12. Harder, Amy, “U.S. Oil Giants Poised to Gain on Keystone Pipeline,” National Journal, August 4, 2011,
http://www.nationaljournaLcom/energy/u-s-oil-giants-poised-to-gain-on-keystone -pipeline -20110804. “Board of Directors,” Canadian
Natural, 2014, http://www.cnrl.com/about-cnq/board-ol-directors.
13. Pasternak, Sean B., “Goolsbee Says U.S. Opponents of TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline Are Naive,” Bloomberg.com, November
8, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201 1-1 l-28/goolsbee-says-those-in-u-s-opposing-keystone-xl-are-na-ve-.htmL
14. Eilperin, Juliet, and Steven Mufson, “Keystone Pipeline Lobbyist Works All the Angles with Former Colleagues,” Washington Post,
September 22, 201 1 , http://www.washingtonpost.corn/national/health-science/transcanada-pipeline-lobbyist-works-all-the-angles-with-
15. Alberts, Sheldon, “State Department Denies Bias on Keystone Pipeline,” Calgary Herald, October 4, 201 1, D1 sec.
16. De Souza, Mike, “Alberta Hired Ex-Clinton Aide to ‘Blunt’ Keystone Criticism,” Toronto Star, August 14, 2014, A2 sec.
17. Krolf Andy, “Exclusive: State Dept. Hid Contractor’s Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company,” Mother Jones, March 21, 2013,
18. “Hillary Clinton 2011 Personal Financial Disclosure,” OpenSecrets.org, June 29, 2012,
http ://pfds. ope nsecrets. org/N 000000 1 9_20 1 1 .pdf.
19. McCarthy, Shawn, “State Department E-mails Trigger Allegations of Bias in Keystone Review,” Globe and Mail (Toronto),
September 22, 2011, http://www.thegtobeandnrail.corn/globe-investor/state-department-e-mails-trigger-allegations-of-bias-in-keystone-
20. US House of Representatives, Energy and Commerce Committee, “Keystone XL: #TinreToBuild,”
http://energycommerce.house.gov/content/keystone-xl (accessed January 2015).
21. VanderKlippe, Nathan, “How a Pipeline Was Defeated: Actors, Activists and One Key Conversation,” Globe and Mail (Toronto),
November 11, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/how-a-pipeline-was-defeated-actors-activists-and-one-key-
22. Sheppard, Kate, “Clinton Tips Hand in Favor of TransCanada’s Massive Pipeline?” Mother Jones, October 20, 2010,
23. VanderKlippe, “How a Pipeline Was Defeated.”
24. McCarthy, Shawn, “U.S. Values Canada as Energy Supplier,” Globe Advisor, May 11, 2012,
https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/print/gam/20l 205 1 1/RBSTATEENERGYMCGARTHYATL. US House of
Representatives, Energy and Commerce Committee, “Keystone XL: #TinreToBuild.”
25. Dixon, Darius, and Dan Berman, “Bill Clinton on Keystone XL Pipeline: ‘Embrace’ It,” Politico, February 29, 2012,
26. Goodman, Lee-Anne, “Bill Clinton Goes to Bat for Keystone XL Even as His Wife Decides Its Fate,” Canadian Press, February
29, 2012, http://www.stalbertgazette.eom/article/GB/20l20229/CP02/302299787/-l/SAG08/bill-clinton-puts-in-good-word-for-
27. “TD Bank (TD) to Start Selling Shares of Keystone XL Pipeline after Obama Speech Hints the Project May Not Be Approved,”
The Free Library, June 28, 2013, http://www.thefreelibrarycom/TD l Bank /
(TDj+To+Start+SeUing+Shares+Of+Keystone+XL+Pipeline+After . . . -a0335294529.
29. “Clinton: I’ve Traveled Around Canada Avoiding Answering Questions About the Keystone Pipeline,” on lin e video clip, Rising
ICYMI, Youtube, January 21, 2015, https7/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui3qagfMIJI
30. Shecter, Barbara, “How TD Bank is lin king up with Bill Clinton to win over the U.S. market,” Financial Post, July 23, 2014,
31. Jackson, David, “Bill Clinton Made $13. 4M in 2011 Speech Fees,” USA Today, July 5, 2012,
32. Spirgel, Larry, “Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009,” report, September 29, 2010,
34. US Department of State, Embassy in Stockholm, “Swedish-Iranian Economic Relations: Business as Usual, Resistance to Financial
Sanctions,” WikiLeaks, December 15, 2009, http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STOCKHOLM778_a.htnrl.
35. US Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Belarus,” report, April 8, 2011,
http://www .state . gov/j/ drl/rls/hrrpt/20 1 0/ eur/ 154414. htm.
36. Elgin, Ben, “House Bill May Ban U.S. Surveillance Gear Sales,” Bloonrberg.com, December 9, 2011,
37. “Escalating Sanctions on Iran,” Frontline, PBS, June 3, 2011, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/06/-qa-
38. US Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, “New Sanctions on Iran,” news release, November 21, 2011,
http://www.state.gOv/r/pa/prs/ps/201 1/1 1/1 77609.htm.
39. “House Bill May Ban U.S. Surveillance Gear Sales,” Bloomberg.com, December 9, 2011, http://www.bbomberg.com/news/2011-
12- 09/house-biU-would-ban-surveiUance-gear-sales-by-american-firms.html. President of the United States, Executive Order no.
13590,3 C.F.R. (2011).
40. Puzzanghera, Jim, “U.S. puts sanctions on telecom firms in Syria, Iran, Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2012,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/business/la-fi-obama-tech-sanctions-20120424; Stecklow, Steve, “Exclusive: Ericsson helps
Iran telecoms, letter reveals long-term deal,” Reuters , November 20, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/ll/20/us-iran-
41. Chrisafis, Angelique, “Tunisia: Gang Violence Mars Celebration of Popular Uprising,” The Guardian, January 15, 2011,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/15/tunisia-protests-zine-al-abidine-ben-ali. Batty, David, “Egypt Bomb K ills New Year
Churchgoers,” The Guardian, January 1, 2011, http://www.thegqardian.com/world/2011/jan/01/egypt-bomb-kills-new-year-
42. Finn, Tom, “Yemeni Protesters Shot Dead at Sana’a University,” The Guardian, February 23, 2011,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/23/yemen-protesters-shot-dead-university. Black, Ian, “Arrests and Deaths as Egypt
Protest Spreads across Middle East,” The Guardian, February 14, 2011, http://www.thegqardian.com/world/2011/feb/14/middle-east-
43. “US Sanctions Foreign Firms Trading with Iran,” BBC News, May 24, 2011, http://www.bbc. co.uk/news/world-middle-east-
13528637. US Department of State, “Seven Companies Sanctioned under the Amended Iran Sanctions Act,” May 2011,
44. “US Hits Iranian Shipping with Sanctions,” Agence France-Presse, June 20, 2011, http://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/13104/US-
46. US Department of State, Embassy in Abu Dhabi “Codel to Lowey with UAE Foreign Minister on Iran,” WikiLeaks, February 22,
47. “Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI),” BlueCarbonPortal.org, http://blucwuirbonportal.org/7dt_porttblkwabu-
dhabi-global-environmental-data-initiative-agedi (accessed January 2015). “Hillary Clinton 2011 Personal Financial Disclosure,”
OpenSecrets.org, June 29, 2012, http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000019_2011.pdf.
48. Smith, Mark, “On UAE National Day, We Honor Dubai’s Eye-Popping Milestones,” Conde Nast Traveler, December 2, 2011,
49. “Global Eye on Earth Summit Launched in Abu Dhabi” International Diplomat, http://thediplomatmagazine.com/events-
50. ‘UAE Foreign Mi nis ter Meets with US Secretary of State,” UAEinteract, December 15, 2011,
http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/UAE_Foreign_Minister_meets_with_US_Secretary_of_State/47685.htm. Aside: Tracing the
funding for the speeches can be difficult. Based on the Clinton’s personal financial disclosure forms, apart from this speech, there
were no speeches sponsored by companies officially owned by the royal family.
51. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State, Case No. F-201 1-03401, Doc No. C05459127 (2014), 419.
52. “E-Commerce Association Welcomed,” People’s Daily (China), June 22, 2000,
53. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Stale, 213.
54. Cendrowski, Scott, “China’s Baddest Billionaire Builder,” Fortune, July 7, 2014, http://fortune.com/20l4/07/07/yah-jiehe-china/.
55. Zhang Yiwen, “Yan Jiehe Talks about Enterprise Development,” China Daily, September 6, 2012,
56. “Clinton Corruption Bombshells,” Judicial Watch, August 1,2014, http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/ciinton-
57. Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State.
58. Powell, Catherine, “Dean Harold Koh: A Great Nomination for State Department Legal Advisor,” Huffington Post, April 10, 2009,
CHAPTER 8: WARLORD ECONOMICS
1. Democratic Republic of the Congo, “Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006,” Pub.L. 109-456 (2006),
2. “Clinton Global Initiative Announces BD’s Commitment to Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital,” PR Newswire, October 29, 2014.
3. “Clinton: US Committed to Good Governance in Congo,” Voice of America, August 11, 2009, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-
1 3- 2009-08- 1 0-voa3 8-688208 1 7/364539. htnil. “Hillary Clinton Will Take UN Plane to Epicenter of African Conflict,” CNN Wire,
August 10, 2009, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/10/hillaiy-clinton-will-take-u-n-plane-to-epicenter-ot-african-conflict/.
4. Dizolele, Mvemba Phezo, “Hope But No Change,” Foreign Policy, July 16, 2012, http://foreignpohcy.com/2012/07/16/hope-but-no-
5. Dizoelel, Mvemba Phezo, “Hope but No Change,” ForeignPolicy.com, July 16, 2012,
http://www . fore ignpolicy. c om / artic le s/20 1 2/07/ 1 6/hope_but_no_change .
6. “Hillaiy: I’m in, and I’m in to Win,” online video clip, PoliticsTV.com, Youtube, January 20, 2007, https f/www. youtube, com/watch?
7. “Lundin Group Commits 100 millio n to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,” press release, Clinton Foundation, July 6, 2007,
8. Clarke, Duncan, Africa: Crude Continent — The Struggle for Africa ’s Oil Prize (London: Profile Books, 2010).
9. Goldstein, Ritt, “Sudanese Blood Spills into Asia,” Asiatimes.com, June 25, 2010,
http://www . atime s . c om/ atime s/ Global_Ec onomy/LF25DjO 1 . html.
10. “Business Family Pledges 100 M illio n Dollars to Clinton Charity,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 10, 2007.
1 1 . “Rising Star: Africa Oil Corp,” Energy Intelligence Finance, February 27, 2013.
12. Jorde, Sigurd, “The Pension Funds Profit from Gold Rush in Eritrea,” Framtiden (Norway), October 16, 2012,
13. “Canada: Kinross Gold to Acquire 100% of Red Back Mining for US $7.1 Billion,” Tendersinfo, August 5, 2010.
14. Grant, Dale, “Canadians Cry ‘Havoc,’ and Let Slip the Dogs of War,” Toronto Star, March 9, 1999, http://articles.philly.com/1997-
05-ll/news/25564930_l_shaba-lubumbashi-president-mobutu-sese-seko. “Mining Concern Agrees to Pay Rebels for Right to Mine in
Zaire,” Business Day (Johannesburg, South Africa), May 13, 1997. McGeough, Paul “Jets Follow Promise of Glittering Mineral
Wealth in the East,” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), May 13, 1997.
15. Quoted in Maykuth, Andrew, “Outside Mining Firms Find Zaire an Untapped Vein; Deals Are Being Made with the Rebels, Who
Need the Cash; the Rival Companies Are Themselves Also Coming into Conflict,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 1997.
16. Abadie, Delphine, Alain Deneault, and Willia m Sacher, “This Is Not an Ethnic Conflict — Vested Interests and Complex Networks
behind the DRC Fighting,” Le Monde Diplomatique , December 1, 2008.
17. Abadie, Delphine, “Canada and the Geopolitics of Mining Interests: A Case Study of the Democratic Republic of Congo,” Review of
African Political Economy > 38, no. 128 (June 2011), and Donville, Christopher, “Friedland Seeks Congo Funding After Gobi Exit:
Corporate Canada,” September 13, 2012, http://www.bbomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/friedland-seeks-congo-funding-after-gobi-exit-
18. Rosen, Armin, “The Warlord and the Basketball Star: A Story of Congo’s Corrupt Gold Trade,” The Atlantic, March 1, 2012.
19. UN Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, “Statement by Chairman of Security Council Working Group
on Children and Armed Conflict,” March 18, 2011, http://www.un.org/press/en/2011/scl0202.doc.htm.
20. Gordon, Greg, and Will Connors, “Clinton Fundraiser Faces Legal Problems in Nigeria,” Ocnus.net, April 6, 2008,
21. CAMAC Group, “Pacific Asia Petroleum & CAMAC Complete Oilfield Transaction,” news release, April 7, 2010,
22. Rosen, “The Warlord and the Basketball Star.”
23. Cause, DC-11-04005, 134th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas. Jones, Pete, “Obama-appointed U.S. Trade Advisor Linked to
Illegal Deal in Congolese Gold,” The Guardian, February 5, 2011, http://www.thegqardian.corn/world/2012/feb/05/us-adviser-hnked-
24. For a full detailed account of this story, see the UN report at http://rehefweb.int/sites/reUefweb.int/files/resources/Nl 155632.pdf.
25. Cause, DC-1 1-04005, 134th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas.
26. “Mohammed A I Amoudi: Ethiopia’s Richest Man Spots Opportunities at Home,” Ventures Africa, April/May 2013.
27. Allen, Terry J., “Global Land Grab,” In These Times, August 22, 2011, http://inthesetimes.eom/artiele/l 1 784/global_land_grab.
28. Davison, William, “Ethiopia: Saudi Billionaire Signs $600 Million Ethiopian Steel-Plant Deal,” Nazret.com, October 5, 2012,
Ethiopian Billionaire: Sheikh Mohammed A I Amoudi,” Ventures, July 20, 2012, http://www.ventures-africa.com/2012/07/the-ethiopian-
29. “Ethiopia — A1 Amoudi Donates $20 m illio n to Clinton Foundation,” Nazret.com, May 14, 2007,
30. “Midroc’s Friends in Washington,” Indian Ocean Newsletter no. 889, January 29, 2000. Ah three senators were connected to the
lobbying firm Verner Lipfert Bernard McPherson and Hand, which was a paid adviser to Midroc.
31. Letter written by Ethiopian Americans for Justice, February 10, 2009. Kifle, Ehas, “Ethiopian Groups Concerned about A I Amoudi
Donation,” Ethiopian Review, February 10, 2009, http://www.ethiopianreview.com/index/8520.
32. Letter written by Ethiopian Americans for Justice, February 10, 2009. Kifle, “Ethiopian Groups Concerned About A1 Amoudi
33. Bekele, Getahune, “A1 Amoudi: The Black Billionaire Survives Health Scare,” Ethiopian News & Opinions, August 29, 2012,
http://ecadforum.com/2012/08/29/al-amoudi-the-black-bilhonaire/. Wax, E mily , “Ethiopian Leader Meles Zenawi Dies at 57,”
Washington Post, August 21, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/locafobituaries/meles-zenawi-ethiopian-leader-dies-
abroad/20 12/08/2 1/T63 7bf62-e 7b2- 1 1 e 1 -936a-b80 1 f 1 abab 1 9_story. html
34. “A1 Amoudi Says ‘I Lost My Right Hand’ over Death of PM Meles Zenawi,” Ethiomedia, August 30, 2012,
35. Davison, William, “Ethiopia’s Foreign Land Leases Fail to Deliver Food for Export,” Business Report , November 26, 2013,
36. “The Ethiopian Billionaire: Sheikh Mohammed A1 Amoudi.” Davison, William, “Ethiopia: Saudi Billionaire Signs $600 Million
Ethiopian Steel-Plant Deal,” Nazret.com, October 5, 2012, http://nazret.eom/blog/index.php/20l2/l0/05/ethiopia-billionaire-
37. “How Politicians Gave Away $100 Bn of Land,” Novafrica Developments, The African Report no. 42 (July 15, 2012).
38. Loewenberg, Samuel, “Aid Agencies Accused of Ignoring Rights Abuses in Ethiopia,” The Lancet 382, issue 9896 (September
39. Rosen, Armin, “The Zenawi Paradox: An Ethiopian Leader’s Good and Terrible Legacy,” The Atlantic , July 20, 2012,
40. “Obituary: Meles Zenawi,” The Telegraph (UK), August 22, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-
obituar ie s/949 1 93 4/Me le s -Ze na w i. htrnl.
41. Hillenbrand, Barry, “An Abrupt End of an Era,” The Herald, September 1, 2012, http://eandeherald.com/2012/09/01/news-of-
ethiopia- 1 1/.
42. “Ethiopia — PM Meles Participation in Pittsburgh Summit Confirmed,” WikiLeaks,
43. US State Department, Embassy in Addis Ababa, “Under Secretary Otero’s Meeting with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi —
January 31, 2010,” report, WikiLeaks, February 2, 2010, https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php7kH10ADDISABABA163.
44. Lyman, Princeton N., and Stephen B. Witte Is, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Unintended Consequences of Washington’s
HIV/AIDS Programs,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66464/princeton-n-lyman-and-
45. US State Department, Embassy in Addis Ababa, “PM Welcomes New Charge with Substance,” WikiLeaks, January 21, 2010,
46. US Office of the Federal Register, “FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report,”
https 7/www.federalregister. gov/articles/2013/03/04/2013-04914/2012-fiscal- transparency-report.
47. US State Department, “Ethiopia: Report on Fiscal Transparency,” WikiLeaks, April 21, 2009,
48. US Office of the Federal Register, voL 76, issue 191, 61134.
49. Dashen Bank, 17th Annual Report for the Year Ending June 30, 2013, November 14, 2013. See the Notes to the Financial
Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2013 available at dashenbanksc.com.
50. “Success Story: U.S. Firms Partner with Ethiopia’s Almeda Tetils in Long-Term Apparel Deal,” USAID: East Africa.
51. “Prospective Presidents and Their Networks,” Indian Ocean Newsletter, Africanintelligence.com, no. 1226, November 17, 2007,
52. “Obama’s Team Not Yet Finalized,” Indian Ocean Newsletter, no. 1258 (March 21, 2009),
http://www.africaintelligence.com/ION/politics-power/2009/03/21/obama-s-team-not-yet-finalised, 57923 115- ART.
53. Wilson, Joseph C., “The Real Hillary I Know — and the Unreal Obama,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillaiy-i-know-a_b_77878.html. US Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence,
“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq,” July 7, 2004,
54. “Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson,” Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, April 23, 2007, http://www.psr-
la.org/joseph-wilson-and-valerie-plame-wilson/. “Valerie Plame Wilson: The Housewife CIA Spy Who Was ‘Fair Game’ for Bush,”
The Telegraph (UK), February 15, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/8318075/Valerie-Plame-Wilson-the-housewife-
55. Moffat-Chaney, Casey, “Ambassador Joe Wilson Stumps for Hillary in Portland,” BlueOregon.com, April 29, 2008,
http://www.bhieoregon.com/2008/04/ambassador-joe/. Emig, Aeriel, “The Plame Affair,” Alibi.com 17, no. 30, July 2008,
http://alihi.com/news/24023/The-Plame-Affah.htmI Kornblut, Anne E., “Stern Constitutions Needed for Globe-trotting with Bill
Clinton,” Washington Post, August 6, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/c ontent/artic le/2008/08/05/AR2008080503 544. html.
56. “Obama’s Team Not Yet Finalized.”
57. “Joseph C. Wilson,” profile, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ioe-wilson/.
58. “Jarch Capital, Strategy,” http://www.jarchcapitaLcom/strategy.php.
59. “Former Wall Street Banker Philippe Heilberg Gambles on a Warlord’s Continuing Control of 400,000 Hectares of Land in South
Sudan,” Sudan Watch, January 10, 2009, http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/fornier-wall-street-banker-philippe.html.
“Ambassador Joe Wilson Begins Working with Jarch Capital,” Sudan Tribune, January 19, 2007,
http://www . sudantrihune . c om / spip. php? article 1 983 3 .
60. Silverstein, Ken, “Jarch Capital’s Sudanese Gambit,” Harper’s, November 20, 2007, http://harpers.org/blog/2007/ll/jarch-capitals-
61. “Southern Sudan: Oil Investor Banking on Succession?” Ratio Magazine, June 3, 2009, httpy/www. ratio-
62. Bias, Javier, and William Wallis, “Buyer Sees Profit in Warlord’s Land,” Financial Times, January 10, 2009,
63. “Southern Sudan: Oil Investor Banking on Succession?”
64. “New SPLA General, Tanginya, Becomes Advisor to US Company Jarch,” Sudan Tribune, October 23, 2010,
67. “South Sudan YP Confirms Apology for Bor Massacre,” Sudan Tribune, April 3, 2012, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?
68. “Profile: South Sudan Army Defector Peter Gadet,” BBC.com, July 1 1, 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25447527.
69. See Hillary Clinton’s Personal Financial Disclosures, 201 1-2012, available at opensecrets.org.
70. Ragaza, Angela, “Using Star Power to Repair Nigeria’s Image,” New York Tunes , July 10, 2008,
71. Abedowale, Segun, “THISDAY Awards Cheques to Nigerian Teachers Bounce,” Eagle Online, April 4, 2013,
72. US State Department, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012,”
http://www.state.gOv/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/20l 2humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dUH204 1 53#wrapper.
73. Gambrill, Jon, “Newspaper Strike Hits Flamboyant Nigerian Publisher,” AP The Big Story, May 10, 2013,
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/newspaper-strike-hits-flamboyant-nigeria-publisher. Ward, Alex, “Nigerian President ‘Spent $1 M illi on of
Aid Money Meant for Poverty-stricken Country on Star-studded Festival Featuring Beyonce and Jay-Z,”’ Daily Mail (UK),
February 23, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283453/Nigerian-president-spent-lmillfon-aid-money-meant-poverty-
74. Olson, Elizabeth, “Swiss Freeze a Dictator’s Giant Cache,” New York Times , January 29, 2000,
75. Okonta, Ike, and Oronto Douglas, Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil (New York: Verso, 2003), 38. Rupert,
James, “Corruption Flourished in Abacha’s Regime,” Washington Post, June 9, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.corn/wp-
srv/inatl/longterm/nigeria/stories/corrupt060998.htm. Adegbamigbe, Ademola, “Nigeria: The Crude Pirate,” The News (Lagos), July
28, 2000, httpy/allafrica. com/stories/200007280213. html Salami, Semiu, “Nigeria’s Oil Mafia,” The News (Lagos), January 4, 1999,
http:// a 11a frica. c om / stories/ 199901 040007. html.
76. Silverstein, Ken, “Clinton Foundation Donors and Hillary’s Confirmation,” Harper ’s, January 21, 2009,
77. US Justice Department, “U.S. Forfeits Over $480 Million Stolen by Former Nigerian Dictator in Largest Forfeiture Ever Obtained
Through a Kleptocracy Action,” August 7, 2014, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-forfeits-over-480-million-stolen-former-nigerian-
78. Urevich, Robin, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime,” Frontline, PBS, January 8, 2010,
79. Rupert, “Corruption Flourished in Abacha’s Regime.”
80. Solomon, John, "Billionaire Clinton Pal Finally Gets Waiver from U.S. No-fly List,” Center for Public Integrity, May 21, 2010,
81. Apple, R. W., “Clinton in Africa: The Policy; U.S. Stance Toward Nigeria and Its Ruler Seems to Shift,” New York Tunes , March
28, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/28/world/clinton-africa-policy-us-stance-toward-nigeria-its-ruler-seems-shift.htmI
82. “Nigeria: Chronology of the Struggle for Stability and Democracy,” AllAfrica, August 24, 2000,
83. Urevich, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime.”
84. Silverstein, “Clinton Foundation Donors and Hillary’s Confirmation.”
85. “Eko Atlantic City,” www.africa-ventures.com, http://edition.cnn.eom/WORLD/africa/africanawards/pdL20l3/tolu-ogunlesi/tolu-
86. Esposito, Richard, Rhonda Schwartz, and Brian Ross, “No-Fly Terror List Includes Big Financial Backer of Clinton,” ABC News,
February 17, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/Bfotter/no-fly-terror-list-incUdes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story7kH9791786.
87. St. Lucia Prime Minster’s Office, “Prime Minister’s Address in Honour of the Honourable Willia m Jefferson Clinton,” January 18,
88. Emshwiller, John R., “Bill Clinton’s Complicated World,” Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB 122973023 139522863.
89. Urevich, “Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime.”
90. “Nigeria: N27 Billion Halliburton Scam IBB, Abdulsalami, Diya, 77 Others Indicted,” AllAfrica, April 14, 2010,
http://allafrica.com/stories/201004150046.html. Silverstein, Ken, “Clinton Donor Figures in New Halliburton Bribe Document,”
Harper’s , April 13, 2010, http://harpers.org/blog/20l 0/04/c linton-donor-figures-in-new-halliburton-bribe-document/. “Halliburton
Settles Nigeria Bribery Claims for $35 Million,” CNN, December 21, 2010,
91. “Ambassador Gilbert Chagoury 2005 Pride of Heritage Honoree,” Lebanese American Foundation, Inc.,
92. Lagos (Nigeria) State Government, “Eko Atlantic City Gets Global Recognition, Wins CGI Award,” September 25, 2009,
http://www. lagosstate. gov. ng/news2.php?k= 1 58.
93. Ammann, Daniel, The King of Oil: The Secret Lives of Marc Rich (New York, St. Martin’s, 2009), 100.
CHAPTER 9: RAINFOREST RICHES
1. “President Bill Clinton and Philanthropists Frank Giustra and Carlos Slim Launch Fondo Acceso SAS, a USD $20 Million Fund for
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Colombia,” press release, Clinton Foundation, June 9, 2010,
2. Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hard Choices (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 253.
3. Uribe Velez, Alvaro, No Lost Causes (New York: Celebra, 2012), 179.
4. “Hillary Clinton Voices Ongoing US Support for Colombia,” BBC News, June 10, 2010, http://www.bbc.com/news/10282709.
5. “U.S. Senators Seek Changes to Plan Colombia: US-Colombia,” Latin American Herald Tribune (Caracas), EFE News Service
(Madrid), January 27, 2010, http://www.laht.com/article. asp?ArticleId=351 189&CategoryId=12393.
6. Romero, Simon, “Colombia Extradites 14 Paramilitary Leaders,” New York Tunes , May 14, 2008,
7. Brody, Daniel, ‘Uribe meets with Bill Clinton,” Colombiareports, June 10, 2010. Begg, Kristen, “Clinton to Meet Uribe, Santos, and
Mockus,” Colombiareports, June 8, 2010, http://colombiareports.co/clinton-to-meet-with-unhe-santos-and-mockus/.
8. “Clintons Stand Up for Colombia,” Investor ’s Business Daily, June 14, 2010, http://news. investors. com/ibd-editorials/06 1110-
9. “Prirna Colombia Hardwood Inc. Completes Acquisition of REM Forest Products Inc, and Closing of $5,500,000, Financing”
Canada Newswire, Digital Journal, September 22, 2010, http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/6l2439/prima-colombia-hardwood-inc-
10. “Prirn a Colombia Hardwood Inc. Completes Acquisition of Rem Forest Products Inc. and Closing of $5,500,000 Financing,”
Newswire, September 22, 2010, http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/612439/prima-colombia-hardwood-inc-completes-acquisition-of-
11. Jimenez, Carlos, “Frank Giustra,” ElPais.com.co, January 20, 2012, http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/opinion/columna/carlos-
12. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Pacific Rubiales Energy Awarded Six Blocks in the ‘2010 ANH Round’ Bidding Process,” press release,
June 23, 2010, http://www.pacificrubiales.com/2010/153-23062010.
13. Quoted in Forero, Juan, “Venezuelan Oilmen Pushed Out by Hugo Chavez Find Opportunities in Colombia,” Washington Post,
September 12, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/venezuelan-oilmen-find-opportunities-in-
colonrbia/20 1 1 /09/ 1 2/gIQ AiO cjTK_story. html.
14. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Where Talent and Knowledge Meet Opportunity,” investor presentation, December 2010,
15. Humphreys, Tommy, “Los Minerales Hermanos: How Two Friends Made a Fortune in Colombia and Expect to Do It Again,”
CEO.ca, April 2, 2013, http://ceo.ca/2013/04/02/colombia-giustra-iacono/.
16. Clinton Foundation, “Press Release: Projects of the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,” March 1, 2008,
17. Pacific Rubiales Energy, “Petro Rubiales Energy and Underwriters Contributing $4.4 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth
Initiative,” press release, July 24, 2007, http://www.pacificrubiales.coni/2007/35-24072007.
18. “El primer dia de la Accion Humanitaria y Laboral a Puerto Gaitan es una aclaracion, de que la USO no ha firmado ningun acuerdo
con,” USOPAZ, October 11, 2011, http://www.pasc.ca/en/actiorPupdates-conflict-canadian-oil-company-pacific-
19. Petroamerica Oil Corp., “Petroamerica Receives Key Colombian Approval,” press release, June 21, 2010,
20. Humphreys, Tommy, and Tekoa da Silva, “Energy Heavyweights Engineering a Turnaround?” CEO.CA, Augusst 20, 2012,
21. Estimates from Petroamerica executive Robert Gillcrest were that the land it could now drill on boasted between “[t]wo to twenty
million barrels maximum” of oil.
22. US Department of State, Embassy in Bogota, “Colombia: Energy Sector to Expand with E xin i Financing,” WikiLeaks, November 18,
23. The secretary of state has the power to review, approve, deny, or delay Exlm financing to any country, entity, or person,
24. “EXMAR, IFC Sign Floating Liquefaction Unit Financing Deal,” LNG World News, December 6, 2012,
25. Endeavour Mining, “Endeavour’s Growth Plan,” October 2010, httpy/www.endeavourmining.com/i/pdf/Presentations/Investor-
26. “Merchant Banking, Endeavour Financial Corporation,” BMO Global Resource Conference, February 2009,
27. Baja Mining, quarterly report, first quarter 201 1, http://www.bajamining.com/content/pdfs/financials/BAJ_Q1201 l_MDA.pdf.
28. US Export-Import Bank, “Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1-September 30, 2013,” 30, 31,
29. Humphreys, “Los Minerales Hermanos.”
30. Isaacson, Adam, “Colombia: Don’t Call It a Model,” Washington Office of Latin America, July 13, 2010,
http://www . wola . org/public ations/ c olombia_dont_c a ll_it_a_mode 1.
31. Good, Chris, “Republicans Support Obama’s Trade Agenda. Do Democrats?” The Atlantic, September 17, 2011,
Revolution: A Long-awaited Pact Comes into Force,” The Economist, May 19, 2012, http://www.economist.eom/node/2 1 555592.
32. According to Maria Consuelo Araujo, “President Alvaro Uribe said the country can not continue living preferences. On TLC there is
concern because some American analysts believe that the current Congress would not give its approval to the agreement.” Araujo,
‘Uribe, tras prorroga de ayuda comercial,” El Pais (Bogota), September 1, 2014, http://translate.google.com/translate?
hl=en&sl=es&u=httpy/historico.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Noviembrel42006/aptdea.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522hillaiy 0 /
33. Smith, Elliot Blair, “Clinton Used Giustra’s Plane, Opened Doors for Deals,” Bloomberg.com, February 22, 2008,
34. Stein, Sam, “Bill Clinton’s Ties to Colombia Trade Deal Stronger than Even Penn’s,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2011,
http://www.huffmgtonpost. com/2008/04/08/bill-clintons-ties-to-col_n_9565 1 .html.
35. Emshwiller, John, and Jose De Cordoba, “Bill Clinton’s Complex Charities,” Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2008,
37. “Plan Colombia — the Sequel,” The Economist August 21, 2003, http://www.economist.com/node/2009304. Carter, Zach, “Trade
Deals Face Growing House Opposition amid Continued Violence in Colombia,” video , Huffington Post, August 11, 2011,
38. Fenwarth, Andres Espinosa, “Opinion — Colombia atenta a posicion de Hillary Clinton sobre TLC,” Noticias Financieras,
November 14, 2007.
39. “Colombia to Honor Clinton for His Efforts to Help Country’s Image,” Arkansas Online, May 24, 2007,
40. Isikoff, Michael, and Mark Hosenbalf “It’s So Nice to Be Here,” Newsweek, April 21, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/its-so-
42. Davis, Susan, “Clinton Aide Met on Trade Deal; Penn Held Talks on Colombia Pact Opposed by Senator,” Wall Street Journal ,
April 4, 2008. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie, “Colombia Sacks PR Firm Led by Clinton Strategist,” Financial Times, April 7, 2008,
43. Kirchgaessner, “Colombia Sacks PR Firm Led by Clinton Strategist.”
44. Javers, Eamon, “HRC Colombia ties don’t stop with Perm,” April 7, 2008, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9433.html.
45. “Clinton Reiterates Opposition to Colombia Trade Pact,” Los Angeles Ernes, April 9, 2008,
46. “Uribe Criticizes Obama over Free Trade Pact,” Colombia Reports, April 3, 2008, http://colombiareports.co/uribe-criticizes-obama-
47. “Colombia Business Forecast Report,” Business Monitor International, 2nd Quarter 2008 Report.
48. ‘U.S. Secretary of State Willing to Work with Colombia on Trade Deal — Official,” BBC Monitoring Americas, February 26, 2009.
49. Muscara, Aprille, “U.S.: Spate of Trade Deals Move toward Passage,” Global Information Network, January 28, 2011,
50. “Secretary Clinton’s Remarks to the Press at the Release of the 2010 Human Rights Reports,” Humanrights.gov, April 8, 2011.
51. US Department of State, “2010 Colombia Human Rights Report,” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160452.pdf.
52. Dougherty, Jilf “Hillary Clinton Tells U.S. Businesses ‘We Need to Up Our Game,’ Abroad,” CNN.com, July 12, 2011,
53. AFL-CIO, “Colombia,” http://www.afkio.org/Issues/Trade/Cofombia/Colombia.
54. Jimenez, Carlos, “Frank Giustra, ” ElPais.com.co, January 20, 2012, http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/opinion/columna/carlos-
55. Press Office of Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo (Colombia), “Rather than Just Leaving Zamora ANH,” September 13, 2011,
56. “Letter from Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo, Bogota, August 23, 2011, to Ronald Pantin, President of Pacific Rubiales Energy,
57. “Canadian Billionaire Frank Giustra May Not Harvest Timber in Choco,” August 24, 2012, http://vox-populicom.co/billonario-
CHAPTER 10: DISASTER CAPITALISM CLINTON-STYLE
1. Haberman, Maggie, “50 Politicos to Watch: Cheryl Mills,” Politico, July 19, 2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/50-
politicos-to-watch-cheryl-mills-94 1 82.html.
2. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction U.S. Efforts Have Begun, Expanded Oversight Still to Be
Implemented,” report, May 2011, http://www.gao.gOv/assets/320/3 18629.pdf.
3. “Bill Clinton’s New Plan to Fix Haiti” Esquire, August 7, 2010, http://www.esquire.com/bfogs/pohtics/biU-clinton-haiti-news-070810.
4. US Department of State, “Fast Fact on U.S. Government’s Work in Haiti: Interim Haiti Recovery Commission,” fact sheet, January
8, 2011, http://www.state.gOv/p/wha/rls/fs/201 1/154141. htm; http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318629.pdf.
5. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction U.S. Efforts Have Begun.”
6. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction: USAID Infrastructure Projects Have Had Mixed Results,” June
7. World Bank, “Indonesia: A Reconstruction Chapter Ends Eight Years after the Tsunami,” December 26, 2012,
8. US Government Accountability Office, “Haiti Reconstruction: U.S. Efforts Have Begun.”
9. Sontag, Deborah, “Rebuilding in Haiti Lags after Billions in Post-Quake Aid,” New York Tunes , December 23, 2012,
10. Herz, Ansel, and Kim Ives, “WikiLeaks Haiti: The Post-Quake ‘Gold Rush’ for Reconstruction Contracts,” The Nation, June 15,
11. Clary, Mike, “Broward Rivals Battle for Work in Post-quake Haiti,” Sun Sentinel (Florida), July 14, 2010, http://articles.sun-
12. Echeverria, Lily, “Contractors Bet on Work in Helping Haiti Recover,” The Ledger (Lakeland, FL), May 26, 2010,
13. Iuspa-Abbott, Paola, “Developer Takes Fact-finding Mission to Haiti,” Daily Business Review, March 4, 2010,
http ://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202466755176/Devefoper-takes-factfinding-mission-to-Haiti?slretum=20141003 155631.
14. O’Grady, Mary Anastasia, “Clinton for Haiti Czar?” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2010,
15. Herz and Ives, “WikiLeaks Haiti”
16. Boyer, Peter J., “General Clark’s Battles,” New Yorker, November 17, 2003,
17. Haberman, Maggie, “Wes Clark Also ‘Ready for Hillary’ Clinton,” Politico, June 23, 2013,
18. US Department of State, Embassy in Port-au-Prince, “Earthquake Sitrep as of 1800,” Wikileaks, February 1, 2010,
19. Viglucci, Andres, “Low Cost Cabins Offered for Post-Haiti Earthquake Housing,” Miami Herald, February 25, 2010. Brinkmann,
Paul, “Claudio Osorio Target in $220M Swiss Probe,” South Florida Business Journal, January 27, 2011, http://www.bi/iournals.
20. US Overseas Private Investment Corporation, “Non-confidential Information Summary for the Public,” InnoVida Holdings LLC,
21. Gray, Kevin, “Claudio Osorio Arrested on Fraud Charges over Innovida Haiti Housing Scam,” video, Huffington Post, December 7,
2012, httpy/www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/12/07/claudio-osorio-fraud-charges-jeb-bush-innovida_n_22627 1 7.html
22. Chiareha, Tom, “While Most of the World Has Stopped Paying Attention to Haiti, Bill Clinton Is the De Facto Leader of the Effort
to Rebuild the Country,” Esquire, July 19, 2010, http://www.esquire.com/features/impossihle/bih-clinton-haiti-rehef-0810-7.
23. Charles, Jacqueline, “Bill Clinton to take on key Haiti reconstruction role,” Miami Herald, March 30, 2010,
24. Pierre -Pierre, Garry, “Our Man in Haiti: Bill Clinton,” America’s Quarterly, Fall 2009, http://www.americasquarterly.org/garry-
pierre -pierre -haiti.
25. Hujer, Marc, “A Stubborn Savior: Is Bill Clinton Haiti’s Hope for Salvation?” Spiegel, January 10, 2012,
26. Archibold. Randal C., “Haiti’s Prime Minister Quits after 4 Months,” New York Times, February 25, 2012,
27. “Haiti Economy: Bill Clinton’s Role in Economic Policy Increases,” Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Newswire, November 15,
2011, http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx7ar ticleid=978596082&Country=Haiti&topic=Economy&subtopic=Current+policy&sub
28. Johnston, Jake, “Outsourcing Haiti,” Boston Review, January 16, 2014, http://www.bos tonreview.net/world/jake-johnston-haiti-
30. Valbrun, Marjorie, “Haitian Firms Few and Far between on Reconstruction Rosters,” Center for Public Integrity, January 11, 2012,
http://www.publicintegrity. org/2012/01/11/7846/haitian-firms-few-and- far-between-reconstruction-rosters.
31. Uttley, Jimmy, “An Eventful Time for Haiti: Did Anyone Notice?” Haiti Observateur , May 27, 2009.
32. Marcus, Ruth, “Reelection Team Repeatedly Asked President’s Aid,” Washington Post, September 22, 1997,
33. Byron, Christopher, “Pols’ Haiti Hook-up,” New York Post, March 2, 2005, http://www. haitipohcy.org/content/2882.htm?
34. O’Grady, Mary Anastasia, “Democrats for Despotism,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2008,
36. Heinrich, Erik, “Haiti’s Mobile Redemption,” Fortune, August 15, 2013, http //fortune. com/2013/08/15/haitis-mobile-redemption/.
38. Jackson, Steven, “Digicel Operating Profit Hits Record US$1B,” The Gleaner (Jamaica), June 6, 2012, http:/7jamaica-
39. Bramhill, Nick, “Bill Clinton Praises Ireland for Being First to Help with His Global AIDS Initiative,” IrishCentral, October 10, 2013,
http ://www.irishcentraLcom/news/biU-clinton-praises-ire land- for-being-first-to-help-with-his-global-aids-initiative-227204991-
40. “Find a Goal for Jamaica to Embrace, Says Bill Clinton,” Jamaica Observer, October 27, 2010,
http ://m.jamaicaobserver. com/mobile/bus iness/Find-a-goal-for-Jamaica-to-embrace— says-Bill-Clinton_8091662.
41. Humphreys, Joe, “Bill Clinton Visit Cements Close Working Relationship with Denis O’Brien,” Irish Times, October 10, 2013,
httpsk/www. irishtimes. com/search/search-7. 1213540?article=trae&q=&tag_person=Mr%200%20Brien&tag_company=Con
42. Clinton, Bill, “The Case for Optimism,” Time, October 1, 2012, http://content.time.
com/time/magazine/article/0,9 1 7 1 ,212503 1 ,00.html.
43. Browne, Vincent, “O’Brien’s Record Should Disbar Him from Having a Disproportionate Hold on Media,” Dennis O Brien News,
August 14, 2013, http :/? w w w. de n is obr ie n news.com/?p=25; Tribunal of Inquiry (Ireland), “Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into
Payments to Politicians and Related Matters,” part II, vols. 1 and 2, The Guardian March 2011,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/22/irish-minister-accused-collusion-telecoms; http://www. moriarty-
tnbunal.ie/asp/detail.asp?objec tid=310& Mode=0&RecordID=545.
44. See VCSmining.com and Evens Sanon and Danica Coto, “Haiti Awards Gold, Copper Mining Permits,” Associated Press,
December 21, 2012.
45. Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, “Haiti’s ‘Gold Rush’ Pro mis es El Dorado — but for Whom?” June 27, 2012,
46. Regan, Jane, “Haitian Senate Calls for Halt to Mining Activities,” Inter Press Ser vice, February 24, 2013.
47. Reitman, Janet, “Beyond Rehef: How the World Failed Haiti,” Rolling Stone, August 4, 2011,
http://www.rolhngstone. com/pohtics/news/how-the-world-failed-haiti-201 1 0804?page=7.
50. US Agency for International Development, Office of Inspector General, “Audit of USAID’s Efforts to Provide Shelter in Haiti,”
April 19, 2011, https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/l-521-ll-003-p.pdf.
51. Macdonald, Isabel, and Isabeau Doucet, “The Shelters that Clinton Built,” The Nation, August 1-8, 2011,
52. Doucet, Isabeau, and Isabel MacDonald, “Shelters in Leogare Inspected by Clinton Foundation,” The Gazette (Montreal), August
53. Sontag, Deborah, “Rebuilding in Haiti Lags after Billions in Post-Quake Aid,” New York Tunes , December 23, 2012,
54. Regan, Jane, “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, Cynicism,” The World-Post , December 3, 2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janeregan/haiti-housing-exposition-_b_1911898.html. “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste,
Cynicism,” Global Information Network, October 2, 2012, http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/haiti-housing-exposition-exposes-waste-
55. “Haiti’s Two-M illio n-Dollar Ghost Town,” Inter Press Ser vice News Agency, October 2, 2012,
56. “Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, Cynicism,” Global Information Network, October 2, 2012.
57. Watkins, Tate, “A $300 Million Development Project — and Haiti’s Future — Depend on America’s Open Markets,” Quartz, May 8,
58. Charles, Jacqueline, “Haitian Garment Industry Uplifted by Korean Investment,” Cleveland.com, April 10, 2011,
59. Sontag, Deborah, “Earthquake Relief Where Haiti Wasn’t Broken,” New York Times , July 5, 2012,
60. US General Accountability Office, “Report to Congressional Requesters, Haiti Recon-struction: USAID Infrastructure Projects
Have Mixed Results and Face Sustainability Challenges,” June 2013, 8, 10.
61 . Sontag, “Earthquake Relief Where Haiti Wasn’t Broken.”
62. Johnston, Jake, “Outsourcing Haiti,” Boston Review, January 16, 2014, http://www.bos tonreview.net/world/jake-johnston-haiti-
63. Watkins, “A $300 Million Development Project.”
64. Louis, Newton, and Andre Michel, “Haiti — Justice: Me Newton and Me Michel Ini-tiate an Action against Former President
Clinton,” Haiti Libre, April 17, 2014, http://www.haitihbre.com/en/news-10960-haiti-justice-me-newton-and-me-michel-initiate-an-
action-against-former-president-clinton.htmL O’ Grady, Mary A., “Bill, Hillary and the Haiti Debacle,” Wall Street Journal , May 18,
CHAPTER 11: QUID PRO QUO?
1. Clinton, Hillary, “International Anti-Corruption Day,” US Department of State, December 9, 2009,
2. “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Receive Transparency Interna tional-USA’s Integrity Award,” US Department of
State, Office of the Spokesman, March 21, 2012, http://www.state.gOv/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/03/186148.htm.
3. OECD Working Group on Bribery, “Annual Report 2013,” December 4, 2013, http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-
bribe ry/A n ti B ribe ry A n n R e p20 1 2. pdf, 6.
4. United States v. Abbey 560 F.3d 513, 518-19 (6th Cir. 2009). Henning, Peter J., and Lee Radek, The Prosecution and Defense
of Public Corruption: The Law and Legal Strategies (New York: Oxford University Press, 201 1), 1 14.
5. Metcalf, Tom, “Ireland’s Would-Be Carlos Slim Sells Mobiles to Masses,” Bloomberg, com, November 12, 2013,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-ll-13/ireland-s-would-be-carlos-slim-sells-mobiles-to-masses.html. Clinton Foundation,
“Contributor Information,” https//www.clintonfoundation.org/contrihutors?category=%241%2C00
6. Lenzner, Terry F., “A Second Presidential Scandal,” in The Investigator: Fifty Years of Uncovering the Truth (New York:
Penguin Group, 2013), 290-314.
7. US Senate, Governmental Affairs Committee, Majority Report: Executive Summary, March 5, 1998,
10. Fournier, Ron, “White House Database: Hotel Link to Lincoln Bedroom,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal , January 1, 1997,
11. Clinton, Hillary, “Remarks at the Transparency International-USA’s Annual Integrity Award Dinner,” speech, Transparency
International Integrity Award Dinner, May-flower Hotel, Washington DC, March 22, 2012, http ://m. state . gov/nid 1 86703 . htm. Geman,
Ben, “Clinton: SEC Oil, Mining Regs Will Have ‘Profound’ Effect,” The Hill, March 23, 2012, http://thehih.com/pohcy/energy-
12. Gerth, Jeff, “Top Arkansas Lawyer Helped Hillary Clinton Turn Big Profit,” New York Tunes , March 17, 1994,
About the Author
PETER SCHWEIZER is the author of Extortion, Throw Them All Out, Architects of Ruin, and
other books that have revealed political wrongdoing and led to congressional resignations and new
ethics laws. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and the founder and director of the
Government Accountability Institute, a team of investigative researchers and journalists committed to
investigating and exposing crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental
corruption or malfeasance.
Discover great authors, exclusive offers, and more at hc.com
Also by Peter Schwfjzf.r
Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets
Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land
Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison
Architects of Ruin : How Big Government Liberals Wrecked the Global Economy — and How They
Will Do It Again If No One Stops Them
Landmark Speeches of the Conservative Movement (with Wynton Hall)
The Reagan Presidency: Assessing the Man and His Legacy (with Paul Kengor)
Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy
The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty (with Rochelle Schweizer)
Reagan ’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism
Disney: The Mouse Betrayed (with Rochelle Schweizer)
Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet
COVER PHOTOGRAPH © BY RON SACHS / GETTY IMAGES
clinton cash. Copyright © 2015 by Peter Schweizer. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By
payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book
on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered, or stored in or introduced
into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or
hereafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books.
EPub Edition May 2015 ISBN 9780062369307
15 16 17 18 19 ov/rrd 10 987654321
About thf. Pttrmshfr
HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty. Ltd.
Level 13, 201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
2 Bloor Street East - 20th Floor
Toronto, ONM4W 1A8, Canada
HarperCollins Publishers New Zealand
Unit Dl, 63 Apollo Drive
Auckland, New Zealand
HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
1 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9GF, UK
HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
New York, NY 10007